..xriitiiiniiiiiiiiiiinilillllllllfllllUllinillllllllillllllf 


Division     B5l\Tfc 
Section     •H6)6'3 


THE 

EARLY    RELIGION    OF    ISRAEL 

VOLUME  II. 


^^:^:^^^ 


OCT  12  1909 


^ 


Karly   Religion   of  Israel 


AS    SET    FORTH    BY    BIBLICAL    WRITERS 
AND  BY  MODERN   CRITICAL  HISTORIANS 


BY 


JAMES   ROBERTSON,    D.D. 

Professor    of     Oriental     Languages    in    the 
University    of    Glasgow 


VOLUME    II 


THOMAS     WHITTAKER, 

2   &   3   BIBLE   HOUSE. 
NEW  YORK. 


CONTENTS. 

VOLUME  11. 


CHAP. 

XI.    THE    JAIIAVEH    RELIGION, 


PAGE 
1 


XII.  ETHIC    MONOTHEISM, 34 

XIII.  AUTHORITATIVE    INSTITUTIONS — THEIR    EARLY    DATE,    .  6.S 

XIV.  AUTHORITATIVE    INSTITUTIONS — THEIR    RELIGIOUS    BASIS,  99 
XA'.  THE    THREE    CODES,                ......  130 


XVI.    THE    LAW-BOOKS, 
XVII.    LAW    AND    PROPHECY, 
XVIIL    CONCLUSION,       . 

NOTES,       . 

INDEX,      . 


166 
195 
222 
255 

286 


CHAPTER  XL 

THE  JAHAVEH  RELIGION. 

The  Jahaveh  religion  characteristic  of  Israel— The  points  to  be 
examined  in  this  chapter:  I.  Its  origin;  II.  Its  specific 
initial  significance— I.  Origin  sought  for  in  (1)  Indo- 
Oermanic;  (2)  Assyro-Babylonian ;  (3)  Egijptian ;  (4) 
Eenite  ;  and  (5)  Canaanite  language  or  religion— Con- 
clusion that  it  is  distinctively  Israelite — //.  Significance — 
Etymological  considerations — Critical  derivation,  "  Thun- 
derer " — Biblical  derivation — Historical  considerations  in 
its  favour— Importance  of  determining  the  initial  significa- 
tion of  the  name— If  it  is  of  Israelite  origin,  and  intro- 
duced under  definite  historical  circumstances,  it  must  have 
a  specific  signification — The  other  explanation  is  open  to 
the  following  objections:  (1)  There  is  no  evidence  that 
Jahaveh  urns  a  tribal  God  ;  (2)  No  reason  is  given  for  the 
substitution  of  the  name  Jahaveh  for  El;  (3)  Stade's- 
proofs  are  a  confusion  of  early  and  late,  and  give  no 
intelligible  account  of  the  initial  significance  of  the  pre- 
prophetic  conception  of  Jahaveh — Conclusion  that  higher 
qualities  were  there  from  the  first. 

The  thing  that  distinguished  Israel  in  early  times 
from  the  surrounding  nations,  and  in  later  times, 
was  their  contribution  to  the  religious  good  of  the 
world,  was  the  possession  of  the  Jahaveh  religion. 
Even  if  we  admit  that,  as  is  maintained,  Jahaveh 
was  only  to  them  what  the  gods  of  the  nations  around 
them  were  to  their  worshippers,  they  had  this,  at 
least,  as  a  distinctive  mark;  and  it  was  from  it  as  a 
germ  that  the  purer  religion  of  the  i)rophets  was  de- 


2  Frniy  Belicjio}!  of  I.vad. 

vclopcd.  Even  if,  in  pre-prophetic  times, the  national 
religion  was  of  a  low  type,  at  the  bottom  of  it  lay  the 
belief  that  Jahaveh  was  Israel's  God;  nay,  even  if 
they  thought  it  no  sin  to  employ  the  names  of  heath- 
en deities  in  forming  proper  names  and  so  forth,  they 
were  all  the  time  professors  of  the  Jahaveh  religion, 
and  the  fnost  that  can  be  said  is,  that  they  bestowed 
on  Jahaveh  Himself  those  names  that  other  nations 
applied  to  their  gods.  I  have  advanced  considera- 
tions to  show  that  the  positions  referred  to  as  to  the 
low  character  of  the  pre-prophetic  religion  are  not 
by  any  means  established.  But  I  insist  upon  this 
point  now,  that  even  if  they  were  established,  the 
great  problem  has  still  to  be  solved.  Two  points, 
mentioned  in  a  former  chapter,^  still  remain  to  be 
demonstrated:  (1)  We  must  be  shown  the  origin  of 
the  Jahaveh  religion,  and  it  must  be  seen  to  have 
such  distinctive  marks  as  will  make  it  characteristic 
of  Israel,  and  bind  them  together  at  the  most  critical 
period  of  their  history;  and  then  (2)  the  process  of 
development  must  be  pointed  out  by  which,  in  well- 
marked  historical  stadia,  it  rose  to  the  religion  which 
is  described  as  ethic  monotheism.  Brietiy  put,  we 
must  have  an  explanation  of  the  Jahaveh  religion  at 
both  extremities  of  its  development,  at  its  start  and 
at  its  final  development:  and  it  is  incumbent  on  those 
who  refuse  to  take  the  Bil)lical  account  of  the  matter 
to  present  us  with  another  tliat  will  stand  the  test  of 
historical  criticism.  Tliey  must  show  us  {a)  the 
source  of  the  Jahaveh  religion;  {b)  its  specific  initial 
significance;  and  (c)  its  historical  development  from 

'  CliHpter  vl.  p.  166. 


The  Jahavch  EeJirjion.  3 

the  lower  to  the  higher  stage.  A  consideration  of 
the  first  two  of  these  three  points  will  be  the  subject 
of  this  chapter. 

I.  In  regard  to  the  origin  of  the  Jahaveh  religion, 
as  in  regard  to  otiicr  distinctive  features  of  the  his- 
tory-, investigations  have  been  pursued  in  various 
directions  with  the  view  of  discovering,  if  possible, 
some  point  of  contact  with  o.nd  dependence  upon 
other  nations  with  which  Israel  was  brought  into 
connection;  and  different  investigators  have  thought 
that  they  have  discovered  either  the  actual  name 
Jahaveh,  or  the  idea  which  it  expresses,  in  the 
languages  and  religious  conceptions  of  different  peo- 
ples. Inquiries  of  this  kind  are  perfectly  legitimate, 
and  often  lead  to  most  instructive  results.  The  issue 
of  them,  however,  must  be  carefully  noted.  When, 
for  example,  Wellhausen  says  that  Nabiism  passed 
over  from  the  Phoenicians  to  Israel  at  a  certain  time, 
that  is  not  a  final  explanation  of  Israelite  prophetism. 
Even  if  the  fact  were  as  he  asserts — and  it  depends 
very  much  on  his  assertion — there  still  remains  to  be 
explained  how  the  '•  passing  over  "  took  place  at  such 
a  time,  and  the  more  difficult  fact  that  it  passed  over 
into  so  different  a  phenomenon;  and  for  both  these 
circumstances  Ave  have  to  fall  back  upon  some  pre- 
disposing cause,  and  some  inherent  capability  in 
Israel.  Similarly,  sliould  it  be  proved  that  the  name 
Jahaveh,  or  the  idea  denoted  by  the  name,  is  found 
among  some  other  people,  we  are  no  nearer  the  so- 
lution of  the  problem.  First  of  all,  we  are  driven  a 
step  farther  back  in  our  search  for  its  origin,  and 
have  to  explain  wlience  that  other  people  got  it;  and 


4  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

secondly,  we  have  to  account  for  Israel's  adopting  it; 
and  lastly,  we  have  to  explain  why  it  became,  in 
their  hands,  quite  a  new  thing. 

The  investigations  that  have  been  made  in  the  di- 
rections indicated  are  interesting  and  exhaustive. 
The  name,  or  the  idea  which  it  expresses,  has  been 
in  turn  sought  for  in  (1)  Indo-Ger manic;  (2)  in 
Assyro-Babylonian;  (3)  J]gyptian;  (4)  Kenite;  and 
(5)  Canaanite  language  or  religion.  We  must  brief- 
ly consider  the  arguments  advanced  for  these  various 
views. 

(1.)  An  Indo-Germanic  source  of  the  name  has 
been  sought  by  some  scholars.  Thus  Yon  Bohlen,^ 
referring  to  the  varying  forms,  Jave,  Jaho,  and  Jao 
{laoo)^  under  which  the  name  appears  in  writings  of 
the  Jews,  Samaritans,  and  Christian  fathers,  says 
that  '^in  this  shape  it  is  clearly  connected  with  the 
names  of  the  Deity  in  many  other  languages  " — Greek, 
Latin,  and  Sanscrit — and  that  the  original  form  Avould 
have  been  Jali.  This  opinion  has  been  pronounced 
by  J.  G.  Miiller^  as  ^'not  lightly  to  be  set  aside." 
The  idea  is  that  the  Indo-Germanic  root  div  =  shine, 
which  lies  at  the  basis  of  Jovis  or  Diovis,  is  to  be 
recognised  as  also  underlying  the  Hebrew  tetragram- 
maton,  which  originally  may  have  sounded  Javo, 
Jevo,  Jove,  orJeva.  But  the  connection  of  the  Indo- 
Germanic  root  with  the  Ileln-ow  vocable  cannot  be 
made  out  so  easily  as  is  thus  done.  And  there  are 
two  special  diflicultics  in  the  way  of  such  a  theory, — 

1  Introduction  to  tho  Book  of  ftonosis.  Hoywood's  Translation  (1855), 
vol.  1.  p.  131  f.     Compare  Vatko.  Blbl.  Thool.,  p.  «i7-.>. 

-  Dio  Semtten  in  Ihrem  Verh  .Itniss   zu   Chamitou   u.   Japliothlten 
(187-2),  p.  163  L 


The  Jahaveh  Ucli'jion.  5 

(a)  that  if  Jahavrh  is  ()rip,-iiially  tin  Iiivlo-Gcrmanic 
word  coiTCS[)()ii(liiiii'  to  a  root  div^  whicli  is  widely 
diffused  in  these  hmguages,  it  docs  not  appear  to 
have  passed  over  in  this  sense  into  the  Semitic  hm- 
guagcs  generally,  but  only  to  have  1)een  appropriated 
for  a  special  name  by  a  small  and  comparatively  in- 
significant branch  of  them;  and  (b)  more  particularly, 
there  is  ah'cady  in  the  Ilel)rew  language,  not  to  speak 
of  other  l)ranches  of  Semitic,  a  common  root,  hawcf, 
from  which  the  name  can  be  derived  by  an  exact  an- 
alogy with  other  proper  names,  like  Isaac,  Jacob, 
and  so  forth. 

Ilitzig^  sought  in  another  way  to  derive  the  name, 
or  rather  the  idea,  from  an  Aryan  source.  The  Ar- 
menian name  of  God  is  Astuads  (Astovads) — /.c, 
astvat,  'Hhe  becoming  one'';  and  Ilitzig  supposed 
that  Moses — to  whom  he  ascribes  the  introduction  of 
Jahaveh  as  a  divine  name — retlecting  on  the  truth 
and  depth  of  the  thought  contained  in  this  designa- 
tion of  the  Deity,  adopted  it  in  a  translated 
form  as  the  name  of  the  God  whose  religion  he 
taught.  AVhat  gives  a  colour  of  support  to  this  ex- 
planation is,  that  some  of  the  earliest  traditions  of 
the  Hebrews  seem  to  come  from  or  to  be  connected 
with  Armenia  and  the  north-east  generally.  ^  There 
remains  the  difficulty,  however,  of  explaining  how 
Moses,  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  should  have  had  a 
knowledge  of  the  Armenian  language,  and  should 

1  Bibl.  Theol.  d.  AUen  Test.,  p.  37  f. 

2  Dillmann.  in  a  paper,  "  Uel)er  die  Herkunft  der  urffeachirhtHi-hon 
Sapen  der  Heliraer  "  (Sitzun{?sherichte  der  Akad.  d.  Wissenschaften  zu 
BerUn. '^7  April  188-2),  contondH  tliat  ii-aiiy  (»'"  th(^se  fradition«  iint  f>idy 
have  their  couiiterparlrt  in  Hahyli'ni.ui  htMiefs.  hut  an*  tho  coinnion 
property  of  other  Eastern  peoples. 


6  Early  BelUjion  of  Israel. 

have  turned  to  that  qii;;rt'T  for  an  idea  to  denote 
his  God.  It*  there  is  any  truth  in  the  theory  at  all, 
it  would  rather  lead  to  a  pre-Mosaic  origin  of  the  idea. 
And  if  the  early  Armenians  expressed  the  idea  they 
attached  to  God  by  a  word  denoting  Being  or  Be- 
coming, it  is  possible  to  conceive  that  the  family  of 
Abraham,  travelling  from  Bab^ion  by  that  way,  may 
have  reached  the  same  notion;  and  that  thus  the 
idea,  kept  as  a  primitive  tradition  down  to  the  time 
of  Moses,  found  expression  in  the  tetragrammaton 
which  was  its  translation. 

(2.)  Turning  now  to  another  quarter,  Friedrich 
Delitzsch  Mias  lately  maintained  that  the  name  Je- 
hovah is  of  Assyro-Babylonian  origin.  The  divine 
name  Jau,  he  says,  the  Hebrews  had  in  common  with 
at  least  the  Philistines,  and  probably  with  the  Cana- 
anites  generally;  and  it  was  in  fact  to  distinguish 
their  own  God  from  the  Jau  of  the  other  peoples  that 
the  name  was  modified  to  the  Hebrew  form,  in  the 
sense  of  the  ''becoming  one.''  But,  he  proceeds, 
this  Canaanite  name  Jah  (like  most  other  Canaanite 
divine  names)  has  its  root  in  the  Bal)yl()iiian  pan- 
theon, answering  to  Ja-u  (corresponding  to  Ilu),  the 
supreme  God  of  the  oldest  Babylonian  system.  The 
name,  however,  is  the  creation  of  the  non-Semitic 
people  of  Babylon,  though  it  came  to  the  Canaanites 
through  the  Semitic  Babylonians.  The  original  Ac- 
cadian  form  of  the  name  was  /,  wliich  the  Semitic 
T^abvlonians  transformed  into  Jau,  in  which  Ibrm  it 
reached  the  ranaanites:  so  that,  instead  of  forms 
like   Jah,   Jahu,    being   ;il)br('vi;itions  of  tlu*  longer 

>  Wo  lag  dus  Puradios?  (1881),  p.  158  Ct. 


The  Jahni'cli  neUfjlori.  1 

Jaliaveh,  the  longer  Ibi'in  was  produced  by  surccssive 
iii>)dirtcatioii  from  the  ijriniary  iiioiiosyllabie  /.  Ari 
to  t Ids  opinion,  it  is  just  as  conceivable,  to  say  the 
least,  tliat  the  full  name  Jahaveh  became  contracted 
into  Jahu,  Jan,  Jo,  or  Jah,  as  that  the  converse  pro- 
cess took  place.  We  have  a  parallel  example  to  il- 
lustrate the  contracting  process,M)ut  the  lengthening 
process,  especially  as  described  by  Delitzsch,  seems 
highly  artificial;  and,  in  point  of  fact,  another  com- 
petent authority,^'  in  examining  the  question  whether 
the  name  Jahaveh  can  be  traced  to  Accadian-Sumer- 
ian  origin,  denies  that  deities  of  the  names  Jau  and 
i  were  ever  recognised  at  all  in  those  regions. 

In  another  way  it  has  been  attempted  to  prove  that 
this  name  came  from  the  same  quarter.  It  is  sup- 
posed that  Canaanitc  immigrants  who  wandered  out 
from  the  region  of  the  Erythraean  Sea  ^  and  came  in 
contact  with  Semitic  peoples,  brought  this  name 
with  them,  and  that  it  was  adopted  into  Semitic.  In 
support  of  this  view  it  is  pointed  out  that  Toi,  king 
of  Hamath,  in  David's  time  sent  his  son,  named 
Joram,  to  salute  David  (2  Sam.  viii.  9),  and  that  the 
name  of  this  son  contains  the  tetragrammaton  in  an 
aljbreviated  form,  just  as  certain  names  of  Hebrew 
personages  do.  There  are  other  isolated  cases  found 
on  the  cuneiform  inscriptions;  but  seeing  that  they 
occur  at  a  period  when  the  religion  of  Jahaveh  was 

'  As  has  been  pointed  out,  there  is  a  complete  analogy  in  the  form 
yishtahaveh  (rim."^'*!")  regularly  contracted  into  yishtahu  /^MrTr"") 

■  Friedrich  Philippi  in  Ztschr.  fur  Volkorpsychologie  u.  Sprach- 
wissonschatt  (1883).  pp.  175-19  J. 

"  In  proof  of  such  wandering,  see  Kunig's  Hist.  Krit.  Lehrgobaude 
der  Heb.  Sprache.  vol.  i.  (18H1)  j).  14  f.  The  proof,  he  maintains  is  not 
invalidated  by  Budde,  Die  Biblische  Urg<^8ohirhte  (i8S3),  p.  32'.)  ff. 


8  Early  FicUg ion  of  Israel. 

loiiff  the  acknowledged  religion  of  the  Hebrews,  it  is 
perhaps  safer  to  regard  these  as  isolated  instances 
of  what  was  not  uncommon — a  non-Semitic  people 
adoj)ting  the  name  of  a  Semitic  god  into  the  circle  of 
t!ieir  deities.  This  is  the  view  taken  by  Baudissin,' 
and  also  by  Schrader,  Avhose  cautious  remarks,  in 
favour  of  a  concurrent  derivation  of  the  name  Jahve 
by  the  Hebrews  and  Assyrians,  are  worth  referring 
to.' 

(3).  Let  us  turn  now  to  Egypt  and  see  whether 
any  light  can  be  derived  from  that  quarter.  And 
here  we  have,  (a)  first  the  attempts  to  trace  the 
name  itself,  as  by  Roth,^  who  identifies  Jahaveh  with, 
or  makes  it  a  modification  of,  the  Egyptian  Joh,  the 
moon-god.  lie  does  not  explain,  however,  how  it 
was  that  the  name  of  a  god  especially  associated 
with  the  moon  should  have  been  bestowed  on  a  deity 
of  whose  connection  with  the  moon  we  liavo  no  trace; 
and  it  is  very  proljable  that  we  have  here  nothing 
UKU'C  than  a  fortuitous  coincidence  of  two  names 
which  never  had  any  connection  in  the  minds  of  those 
who  employed  them,  (b)  On  the  other  hand,  not  a 
few  have  thought  that  the  idea  expressed  by  the  name 
is  to  be  found  in  Egyptian  sources,  and  may  have  been 
borrowed  in  Hebrew  form  by  Israel  in  Egypt,  {a) 
Plutarch  mentions  an  inscription  on  the  temple  of 
Isis  at  Sais,  in  which  a  deity  is  described  in  terms  re- 
sembling the  ''  I  am  that  I  am"  denoted  by  Jahaveh 

1  Der  UrsprungdesGottosnamensIato,  inhis  Studien,  vol.  i.  p.  223. 

2  The  Cuneiform   Inscriptions  and  the  Old  Test..  Eiig.    transl.,  vol. 
1.  p.  23  JT. 

^  ftoschirhto    unsoror    Abendl'indischon   Philo.sopliie,    Erster    Band, 
2to  AutluKe  (l«<i.i).  Nott^  l'^5,  p.  1-13. 


The  Jahaveh  Religion.  9" 

(Exod.  iii.  14);  but  the  ideas  conveyed  by  the  two  do 
not,  when  examined,  correspond  in  the  way  that  it  is 
alleged.^  f/ij  Others,  again,  tind  in  the  name  Jahaveh 
a  Hebrew  reproduction  (I  am  that  I  am)  of  the  Egypt- 
ian nul'pu  nul'J  But  on  this  subject  we  should  hear 
what  is  said  by  so  competent  an  authority  as  Le 
Page  Renouf :  ^ 

"  It  is  quite  true  tliat  in  several  places  of  the  Book  of  the 
Dead  the  three  words  71  uk  2yu  nuk  are  to  be  found;  it  is  true 
that  nuk  is  the  pronoun  I,  and  that  the  demonstrative  pu  often 
serves  to  connect  the  subject  and  predicate  of  a  sentence.  But 
the  context  of  the  words  requires  to  be  examined  before  we  can 
be  sure  that  we  have  just  an  entire  sentence  before  us, especially 
as  pi(  generally  comes  at  the  end  of  a  sentence  Now  if  we  look 
at  the  passages  of  the  Book  of  the  Dead  where  these  words 
occur,  we  shall  see  at  once  that  thej'  do  not  contain  any  mys- 
terious doctrine  about  the  divine  nature.  In  one  of  these  pas- 
sages the  deceased  says,  '  It  is  I  who  know  the  w^ays  of  Nu.' 
In  another  place  he  says,  '  I  am  the  ancient  one  in  the  country 
[or  fields] ;  it  is  I  who  am  Osiris,  who  shut  up  his  father  Seb  and 


These  attempts  to  derive  the  name  or  the  idea  from 
Egypt  are  therefore  very  precarious. 

(4. )  Once  more,  the  idea  has  been  put  forth  that  the 
national  God  of  Israel  was  first  of  all  the  tribal  God 
of  the  Kenites,  with  whom  Israel  came  in  contact  in 
the  wilderness,  and  to  whose  family  Moses  is  repre- 
sented as  being  related  by  marriage  (Exod.  ii.  16; 
Judges  i.  16,  iv.   11).     This   supposition,    advanced 


1  K<'nig,  Hauptprobleme,   p.  31,  to  whom   I   am  indebted  for  much 
of  the  material  and  many  suggestions  in  this  chapter. 

-  So  Wahrmund,  Babyloniertlium,    Israelitenthum,    Christenthum, 
p.  219. 

3  Hibbert  Lecture  for  1879,  p.  244  f. 


10  Early  lidig ion  of  Israel. 

by  Gliillany,Miasbceu  taken  up  and  advocated  ])y 
Tiek'/'^  and  also  by  Stade/  The  only  shadow  of 
proof  I  can  find  for  this  view  as  put  forth  by  Stade 
is,  that  Moses  must  have  borrowed  the  name  of  his 
deity  from  some  one;  and  as  Jethro  was  a  priest  and 
Moses  was  in  close  association  with  him,  the  name 
was  simply  carried  over,  and  thus  marks  the  contin- 
uation of  an  older  faith.  Of  actual  proof  that  this 
was  so,  we  have  none;  and  even  if  we  had,  we  should 
simply  have  to  go  in  search  of  an  older  source.  No 
proof  is  given  that  Jahaveh  was  the  tribal  God  of 
the  Kenites,  nor  is  any  explanation  given  why  the 
Hebrews,  if  they  had  no  tribal  god  ])efore,  should 
have  adopted  this  deity,  or,  if  they  had,  why  they 
made  the  exchange  at  this  particular  time.  It  may  be 
urged,  moreover,  against  this  supposition,  that  the 
Kenites,  though  both  in  the  wilderness  and  in 
Canaan  seen  in  close  friendship  with  Israel,  are  al- 
ways a  small  body,  and  occupy  somewhat  the  posi- 
tion of  pious  sojourners  or  proselytes;  and  it  seems 
contrary  to  the  usual  way  in  which  even  the  critical 
writers  explain  events,  that  the  larger  people  should 
have  adopted  the  god  of  the  smaller  tribe. 

(5.)  Most  of  the  views  that  have  already  been 
mentioned  have  this  in  common,  that  they  place  the 
adoption  of  the  Jahaveh  religion  by  the  Hebrews  at 
some  period  anterior  to  their  entrance  into  Canaan. 

1  Theologische  Briefe  an  die  Gebildeten  der  deutsclien  Nation  von 
Richard  von  der  Aim  (1862),  vol.  1.  pp.  216,  480.  ThroviRh  Ghillany 
writes  under  this  pseudonym,  the  tone  of  this  work,  like  that  which 
finds  expression  in  his  '  Menschenopfer  der  Hebr/ier.  '  is  unmistakable. 
The  deity  of  tlie  Kenites,  he  says,  was  the  sun— worsliii>ped  however, 
not  as  a  living  hull  as  in  Efrypt.  but  In  the  form  of  a  metallic  imapre. 

2  VorRftljjken.!'^  TJeschiod.  van  de  E^'ypt.  en  Mesopot.  Godsdien- 
8ten.  ]).  .").V.).  R  )ni,>on(liurn.  s;  rr}. 

3  Geschichte  dos  V()lkes  Israel,  vol.  i.  p.  130  f. 


The  JaJiaveh  Belirjion.  11 

We  have  now,  however,  to  look  at  another  explana- 
tion, which  regards  the  name  of  Jahaveh  as  one 
gradually  adopted  with  other  parts  of  religious  be- 
lief and  practice  from  the  Canaanites  in  Palestine.^ 
As,  however,  this  view  has  been  successfully  at- 
tacked by  writers  of  the  same  general  school  of  criti- 
cism, it  may  l)e  sufficient  to  refer  to  what  these  latter 
have  advanced  in  the  way  of  refutation.  The  objec- 
tions urged  by  Kuenen  against  Land'-^  deserve  special 
emphasis.  He  argues  as  follows:  {a)  It  cannot  ])e 
denied — Land  himself  admits  it — that,  in  the  strug- 
gles that  took  place  between  the  Canaanites  and  the 
Israelites,  there  was  involved  a  contest  between  the 
gods  of  the  two  peoples;  and  since  at  the  close  of  the 
contest  the  Israelites  and  their  God  were  victorious, 
it  cannot  be  supposed  that  the  deity  who  thus 
asserted  his  superiority  was  originally  of  Canaanite 
origin.  Further,  (h)  not  only  have  we,  he  contends, 
in  the  names  Jochebed  (Moses'  mother),  Josliua 
(Moses'  contemporary),  and  Jonathan  (Moses'  grand- 
son)— in  all  which  tlie  name  Jo  or  Jeho  enters  as  an 
eleuient — an  indication  that  the  name  was  known  to 
the  Israelites  independently  of  and  prior  to  their 
contact  with  Canaanites;  but  also  the  song  of  De- 
borah, in  which  Jahaveh  is  repi'esented  as  coming 
from  Seir,  furnishes  a  plain  i)roof  that  the  God  of  the 
Israelites  was  conceived  as  having  His  original  home 
outside  of  Palestine.     Lastly,  (c)  he  argues  riglitly 

1  This  view  was  indeppiirlontlr  put  forward  by  Colonso  (Pentateuch, 
Part  II.  chap.  viii.).  who  attorwards  discovorcd  (P;irt  VII.  cha]).  xix.) 
that  he  had  been  anticii)at(Hl  by  Hartinann,  Von  Boiilen,  and  Von  der 
Mm..  It  has  also  been  advocateil  l)y  Dozv  (Ue  Israeliten  te  Mecca. 
Germ,  transl.,  l,s6t,  p.  3'.)),  Land  (Tlieol.  Tijdschr.,  1868,  pp.  l.-)C-17()), 
and  Gohlziher  (Mytliolo^'y  amon;^'  tlie  Hebrews,  Eng.  tr.,  pp.  272,  290). 

-  \W\\^.  or  Israel,  vol.  i.  pp.  ;j08-403. 


12  Early  Lellgion  of  Israel 

that  the  view  under  consideration  deviates  from  the 
whole  tenor  ul'  Israelite  tradition,  which  gives  no 
support  to  the  sui)position  that  Jahaveh  was  a  God 
of  Canaanite  origin.  ^'  I  will  not,"'  he  says,  ''  assert 
that  the  latter  [i.e.,  the  Canaanite  origin  of  the 
name  ]  must  be  rejected  on  this  account  alone,  bat  I 
do  assert  that  it  is  only  on  strong  grounds  that  it 
can  be  accepted.  In  other  words,  it  must  be  clearly 
and  irrefragably  proved  that  Jahaveh  was  really  a 
god  of  the  Canaanites.  The  evidence  with  which 
this  is  attested  must  be  of  such  a  nature  as  to  leave  no 
room  for  reasonable  suspicion  of  Israelite  or  Old 
Testament  influence.  But  such  proof  as  this  is  not 
furnished.""  ^  The  principle  which  Kuencn  here  lays 
down  is  of  wide  application, — viz.,  tliat  the  clear 
testimony  of  the  religious  consciousness  of  Israel — 
in  other  words,  a  persistent  tradition— is  only  to  be 
set  aside  on  the  most  undoubted  positive  proof. 
Kuenen  himself  is  far  from  observing  his  own  canon, 
and  Wellhausen  openly  contradicts  it;"^  although  by 
rejecting  it  we  cut  ourselves  away  from  any  firm 
ground  of  historical  criticism. 

Among  the  writers  who  seek  to  derive  the  name  of 
Jahaveh  from  a  Canaanite  source  reference  may  be 
made  to  Yon  Bohlen,^  who  would  place  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  name  as  late  as  the  time  of  David  and 
Solomon.  Some  of  his  arguments  are  of  little  force, 
and  lie  has  found  few  supporters  of  his  view;  but 
there  is  one  argument  he  employs  which,  though  not 

1  In  spite  of  Land's  rejoinder  in  Tliool.  Tijdschr..  iii.  Bd.,  1869. 
Pit  3J7-3f)2.  Knenen's  position  may  he  Ijeld  as  proved.  So  Baudissln 
has  on  this  point  talion  Kuencu's  side,  Studion.  vol.  1.  pp.  213- "JIS. 

-  Hist   of  Israel,  i)p.  31f».  HIO. 

■'•  IntrfHl notion  to  Genesis,  Heywood's  transl.,  vol.  i.  p.  153  f. 


The  Jahaveh  Religion.  13 

valid  for  liis  puri)Ose,  directs  our  attention  to  a  fact 
wiiich  is  worth  noting.  He  remarks  that  proper 
names  compounded  with  the  more  primitive  name  of 
God,  p]l,  such  as  Israel,  Samuel,  disappear  from  his- 
tory more  and  more  from  David's  time,  and  that 
names  compounded  Avith  Jeho  first  appear  in  David's 
reign  or  about  his  time.  Now  it  is  a  fact  that  this 
element  does  not  appear  widely  in  proper  names  be- 
fore the  time  of  Samuel.  We  have  the  names  of 
Joash,  father  of  Gideon  (Judges  vi.  11),  Jotham, 
Gideon's  son  (Judges  ix.  5,  7),  and  Jonathan,  grand- 
son of  Moses  (Judges  xviii.  30).  Besides  these,  we 
have  two  names  before  the  time  of  Samuel — viz., 
Joshua,  the  companion  of  Moses,  whose  name  is  said 
to  have  been  changed  from  Hoshea  (Num.  xiii.  16), 
and  Jochebed,  the  mother  of  Moses  (Exod.  vi.  20). 
In  view  of  these  it  becomes  no  longer  a  question  as 
to  the  introduction  of  the  name  Jeho  or  Jahaveh  in 
the  time  of  David,  but  how  we  are  to  explain  its  ex- 
istence in  the  name  of  Joshua,  Moses'  contemporary, 
or,  allowing  that  to  be  an  altered  name,  in  the 
name  of  the  mother  of  Moses.  It  is  known  that 
whereas  the  Jahavist  writer  in  Genesis  freely  uses 
the  name  Jahaveh  in  reference  to  times  antecedent 
to  that  of  Closes,  the  Elohistic  writer  retains  faith- 
fully the  distinction  of  the  periods;  but  the  name  of 
the  mother  of  Moses  would  lead  us  to  conclude  that 
even  before  the  time  when  the  God  of  Israel  pro- 
claimed His  sacred  name  to  Moses  at  the  bush,  the 
name  itself  had  been  known  beforehand  in  a  nar- 
rower circle,  or  at  Jeast  in  the  family  of  Moses  himself. 
And  this  view  is  adoi)ted  by  many  of  the  ])est  inter- 


14  Farr,'  Religion  of  Israel. 

\)\\U:Vi^^  On  this  subject  Kucneii  says,  ••  ^foscs  can 
scarcely  be  siipi)Ose(l  to  have  invented  the  name 
'  Jahaveh";  in  all  i)r()bability  it  was  already  in  use, 
among  however  limited  a  circle,  before  he  employed 
it  to  indicate  El  Shaddai,  the  God  of  the  sons  of 
Israel; "'- and  to  the  same  elfect  Wellhausen^  says 
that  Jahaveh  was  before  Moses  a  designation  for  El, 
and  that  he  was  originally  a  god  in  the  family  of 
Closes  or  in  the  tribe  of  Joseph. 

On  a  review  of  this  whole  inquiry,  therefore,  wo 
need  not  wonder  that  Kuenen  ^  comes  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  name  is  of  Israclitish  origin.  It  may 
be  observed  in  passing  that  it  is  somewhat  remark- 
able that  the  attempt  should  always  be  made  to  de- 
rive the  religious  conceptions  of  the  Hebrews  from 
non-IIebrcw  sources,  without  supposing  that  an  in- 
fluence in  the  opposite  direction  may  have  1-ecn 
exerted,  from  the  Hebrews  to  their  non-Hebrew 
neighbours.  It  is  no  doubt  the  case  that  the  tradi- 
tion  i)laces  the  native  place  of  Al)raham  in  Chalda^a, 
and  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  the  progenitors  of 
the  Israelites  were  affected  by  the  thoughts  of  the 
time  and  country  from  which  they  came,  just  as  the 
nation  w^as  sensibly  affected  by  contact  \\\i\\  Egy])- 
tians  and  Canaanites.  It  must  be  remembered,  how- 
ever, that  the  tradition  ascribes  Abraham's  departure 
from  his  native  land  to  religious  impulse,  and  Renan 
has  dwelt  upon  the  circumstance  that  religious  con- 
ceptions  remain   more   pure    and   elevated    among 

1  A  Hat  of  writers  who  take  this  view  Is  given  by  Kr.nig,  Hauptpro- 
bleme,  p.  '11. 

2  ReUg  of  Israel,  vol.  i.  p.  279  f.  3  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  433. 
<  Uelig.  of  Israel,  vol.  i.  p.  3'J8. 


The  Jahaveh  Beligion.  15 

simple  nomads  than  among-  civilised  dwellers  in 
cities/  The  exhaustive  inquiry,  however,  that  has 
been  made  by  scholars,  has  its  justification  in  the 
conclusion  to  which  it  comes,  that  there  is  no  out- 
side source  from  which  it  can  be  shown  that  the 
religion  of  Jahaveh  was  derived.  The  use  of  the 
name  is,  at  least,  as  old  as  the  time  of  Moses;  and 
whether  to  any  extent  (which  in  any  case  must  have 
been  limited)  it  was  known  before  his  time,  he  has 
the  distinction  of  having  impressed  it  upon  the 
consciousness  of  the  people  of  his  time  in  a  special 
way  as  the  designation  of  their  national  God,  under 
the  aspect  in  which  He  was  distinctively  made 
known  to  them,  and  by  them  to  be  exclusively  rev- 
erenced. The  unanimous  voice  of  Israelite  tradition 
is  that  the  declaration,  "I  am  Jahaveh  thy  God," 
was  made  through  Moses.  There  is  not  the  least 
hint  in  the  recollections  of  the  people  that  the  name 
was  proclaimed  by  any  other  person.  Between 
Moses  and  Samuel  there  Avas  no  time  at  which  we 
can  conceive  it  to  have  been  introduced;  and  tlie 
time  of  Samuel  itself  is  but  a  time  of  revival  and  re- 
formation, after  which  it  was  not  unnatural  that  the 
name  of  the  covenant  God,  to  whom  the  people's 
heart  had  again  turned,  should  appear,  as  has  been 
pointed  out,  more  extensively  in  the  formation  of 
proper  names. 

In  opposition  to  all  attempts  at  deriving  the  name 
or  conception  from  a  foreign  source,  and  as  showing 
how  it  was  regarded  throughout  by  the  people  of 
Israel  as  a  distinctive  possession  of  the  nation,  there 

1  Hist.  d'Israel,  vol.  i.  chap.  iii. 


16  Early  Belig ion  of  Israel 

stands  the  hard  fact  that  in  Scripture  Jahaveh  is 
ever  the  God  of  Israel  alone.  According  to  the 
views  of  the  Hebrew  writers,  the  non-Israelite  has 
no  part  or  right  to  Jahaveh,  but  knows  only  the  gen- 
eral name  of  Elohim,  God,  or  that  of  his  own  native 
deity. ^  In  the  mouth  of  such  a  one  tlie  name  Jaha- 
veh would  denote  a  strange  god — i.e.,  the  god  of 
the  people  of  Israel  (cf.  1  Kings  xx.  23  with  v.  28). 
So  when  a  Hebrew  speaks  to  a  non-Israelite,  he  is 
represented  as  using  the  name  Elohim,  and  so  also 
when  a  non-Israelite  addresses  a  Hebrew.  And  in 
such  cases  it  is  noticeable  that  the  name  Elohim  is 
sometimes  construed  with  a  plural  verb  (cf.  1  Sam. 
iv.  8),  the  narrator  thereby  assuming  for  the  time 
the  standpoint  of  the  non-Hebrew  speaker  or 
hearer. 

This  hard  fact  is  no^  to  be  set  aside  by  any  vague 
etymological  arguments.  Even  if  it  wore  shown  to 
be  certain,  or  even  probable,  that  the  name  or  the 
conception  of  Jahaveh  was  got  from  some  non-Israel- 
ite quarter  at  some  time  or  another  in  history,  it 
would  remain  beyond  dispute  that,  on  the  one  hand, 
the  name  thus  borrowed  disappeared  from  the  lan- 
guage and  thoughts  of  the  peojile  from  which  it  was 
derived;  and  on  the  other,  that  it  came  very  soon 
to  be  regarded  as  the  exclusive  and  distinguishing 
possession  of  the  pco]ile  who  borrowed  it — a  suppo- 
sition which,  considering  the  attributes  with  Avhich 
Jahaveh  was  endowed,  and  the  readiness  of  i)oly- 
theistic  nations  to  retain  the  names  of  any  number 

'  This  is  wpll  broupht  out  by  Tuch  in  liis  Comin.  to  Genesis,  second 
edition,  p.  xxxii.  He  refers  to  tlies.^  and  otli'^r  passncros :  Jud^jeg  i.  7, 
vii.  14  ;  1  Sam.  iv.  7.  8,  Jonah  iii.  3.  where  with  vei'ses  5.  8,  9,  10,  compare 
1  Sam.  XXX.  15,  xxii.  3. 


The  Jahaveh  Religion.  17 

of  gods,  especiall}^  such  as  had  vindicated  themselves 
as  powerful,  is  not  to  be  entertained. 

II.  \\q  come  now  to  inquire  whether  we  can  de- 
termine what  precisely  was  the  idea  attached  to  this 
name  among  its  earliest  possessors,  so  as  to  disco- 
ver, if  possible,  wherein  the  inner  potency  of  the  Ja- 
haveh religion  consisted.  The  introduction  of  anew 
name  we  would  expect  to  be  accompanied  with  a 
new  reference,  a  new  attitude,  a  new  mode  of  re- 
garding the  deity;  and  we  naturally  ask  whether  the 
name  itself  does  not  furnish  its  own  explanation. 

Those  who  seek  to  prove  that  the  religion  of  Israel 
was  originally  a  nature  religion,  in  which  the  power's 
of  nature  were  deified,  explain  the  name  Jahaveh  in 
keeping  with  this  view.  Thus  Daumer  ^  connects  the 
verb  from  which  it  is  derived  with  the  idea  of  de- 
stroying, and  makes  Jahaveh  'Hhe  Destroyer,"  an 
idea  which  suits  his  notion  that  Jahaveh  and  Moloch 
were  originally  names  for  the  same  deity.  The  more 
common  view  of  those  who  similarly  seek  the  source 
of  the  name  and  idea  in  nature  religion,  is  that  the 
verb  from  which  the  name  is  derived  means  to  "come 
down,"  "fall  down,"  and  then  in  its  transitive  form 
"to  send  down"  or  "cast  down";  according  to 
which  Jahaveh  would  be  a  Jupiter  tonans^  the  Being 
who  casts  the  thunderbolt,  or  the  lightning,  to  the 
earth.  In  support  of  this  view,  we  are  pointed  to 
the  fact  that  the  verb  in  Arabic  (hmva),  which,  letter 
for  letter,  corresponds  to  the  Hebrew  verb,  has  the 
sense  of  gliding  freely,  and  particularly  of  gliding 
or  falling  down.       This  sense,   it  is  said,  actually 

1  Feuer  und  Molochdienst,  p.  11. 


18  Early  Relirjlort  oj  Israel. 

attaches  to  tlic  Hebrew  verb  itself  in  one  place  at 
least  (Job  xxxvii.  6),  ^^  He  saith  to  the  snow.  Fall 
thou  on  the  earth." 

The  Biblical  derivation  of  the  word,  as  is  well 
known,  is  from  the  verb  in  the  sense  ^'tobe"or 
''  become."'  It  may  be  that  from  such  a  primary-  and 
material  sense  as  that  of  "falling,"  the  verb  in  He- 
brew came  to  have  the  more  abstract  and  secondary 
meaning  of  becoming — viz., to  ^^  fall  out,"  "  happen," 
"come  to  pass,"  as  in  Gen.  vii.  6,  "the  flood  was 
upon  the  earth."  ^  This  is  certain,  that  the  sense 
"  to  fall  "  can  at  most  be  only  detected  as  adhering 
to  the  Hebrew  verb,  which  has,  however,  appropri- 
ated to  itself  the  one  signification  of  becoming.  In 
other  words,  from  the  eaj'licst  time  at  which  we 
know  the  language,  this  ATrb  was  the  usual  one  em- 
ployed to  express  the  idea  of  "  being, "not,  however, 
in  the  abstract  sense  of  "  existence,"  but  in  the  sense 
of  "becoming";  there  was  no  other  verb  in  the  lan- 
guage with  that  signitication;  the  meaning  of  "  fall- 
ing," if  it  originally  belonged  to  it,  had  almost  dis- 
appeared; and  another  verb  altogether  was  emj^loyed 
to  ex])ress  that  idea. 

We  can  (piite  easily  comprehend  how  a  verb  -*  to 
fall,"  and  then  "to  send  down,"  could,  among  a 
jiolytheistic  people,  or  even  a  monotheistic  people 
at  a.pi-imative  stage  of  culture,  furnish  the  ^farting- 
l)oint  for  a  name  of  the  deity.  He  would  then  be 
the  Being  who  "sends  down"  rain,  or   thunder,  or 

'  For  tho  Idoa  of  boinfr  and  beooTiiinj:.  tlio  ITobrow  iinos  almost 
oxrliiHlvoly  hminh  ri*.".  httwuh  ."".T-;  hoinj;  found  in  that  sense  f>nly  In 
])OPtlc  urciialf  j>assaso«  :  as  in  Oon.  xxvii.  "i'.'.  v'hr>iv  Jan  V>  Is  Messed 
by  Isauf.  ••  15(>  lord  ov<>r  thy  bntlmui,  "  also  Isa.  xvi.  i,  tLo  <.raclo  on 
Moab.     I,at(T  writers  are  intlueneed  by  Aramaic. 


The  J((h((vc]i  IMUjlon.  19 

whatever  it  might  l)e.  The  name  wouhl  stand  on 
the  same  level,  or,  I  should  say,  a  lower  one,  than 
such  names  as  El^  or  Shaddai,  the  ^'  strong  one,''  or 
Baal,  Adon,  ''lord,"  or  Molech,  "ruler  '';  for  any  one 
of  these  gives  a  fuller  significance  to  the  Being  so 
named.  Against  tliis  origin  of  the  name  among  the 
Hebrews,  however,  we  have,  besides  the  fact  that 
there  is  no  proof  whatever  of  the  Hebrews  adopting 
a  god  of  that  name  from  Arabic  tribes  as  Stade  will 
have  it,  or  of  their  attaching  such  an  idea  to  the 
name  of  their  national  god,  the  stronger  fact  just 
alluded  to,  that  the  verb  had  appropriated  to  itself 
the  sense  of  be,  become,  which  would  be  transitively 
to  cause.  That  is  to  say,  assuming  that  such  a  name 
was  formed  or  introduced  at  some  historic  time,  at 
some  time  when  the  language  contained  the  roots 
or  stems  it  now  possesses,  the  mere  utterance  of  the 
name  would  call  up  in  the  mind  of  the  hearer  the 
idea  of  being,  becoming,  causing.  And  this  is  very 
much  the  same  as  saying  that  the  person  who  intro- 
duced it  wished  to  convey  by  it  that  meaning,  since 
he  could  not  but  have  seen  that  it  would  suggest 
such  an  idea.  To  attach  to  the  name  the  other  and 
more  physical  signification,  would  necessitate  some 
proof  that  the  name  is  of  much  older  origin  than  the 
time  of  Moses,  older  tlian  tlie  language  in  the  form 
in  which  we  have  it;  and  that — if  the  primary  mean- 
ing of  descender  or  sender  down  attached  to  it — 
there  must  have  been  a  constant  effort  in  the  mind 
to  retain  this  anticpiarian  idea,  and  to  exclude  an- 
other which  was  soon  suggested  and  iclnchivasmore 
exalted.     For  it  is  a  point  of  the  ;i,-reatest  significance 


20  Early  Relirjlon  of  Israel. 

here,  that  the  other  names  of  God  found  among  the 
Hebrews  and  their  neighbours  are  connected  with 
stems  which  are  in  the  language  and  have  a  precise 
and  intelligible  meaning.  On  this  line  of  reasoning, 
then,  I  should  conclude,  that  from  the  time  that  the 
verb  to  be,  to  become,  was  a  regular  constituent 
element  of  the  language,  tlie  name  Jahaveh  must  of 
necessity,  if  it  was  later  than  the  verb,  have  partaken 
of  that  signitlcation.  Either  the  name  Jahaveh  was 
directly  formed  from  an  existent  verb  '^  to  be  ";  or  it 
was  formed  from  a  verb  having  the  meaning 
to  descend,  which  meaning,  however,  was,  if  not 
obliterated,  yet  certainly  overshadowed,  at  the 
earliest  known  stage  of  the  language,  by  another 
sense. 

Of  course  this  argument  proceeds  on  the  assump- 
tion that  those  who  used  the  name,  or  at  least  the 
thoughtful  part  of  the  nation  when  they  used  it,  at- 
tached to  it  some  signification,  which  is  surely  very 
likely,  and  in  analogy  with  such  names  as  Moloch 
and  Baal,  which  could  not  but  keep  in  the  mind  the 
ideas  of  kingship  or  lordship.  It  would  surely  be  an 
extraordinary  supposition  that  the  Hebrews  had  got 
hold  of  a  non-llebrew  name  for  their  deity  which 
they  used  for  a  time  without  attaching  to  it  any  sense 
at  all,  and  then  read  into  it  a  meaning  suggested  by 
its  resemblance  to  a  common  verb  in  the  language.  It 
is  not  certainly  to  be  concluded  tliat  the  bare  etymo- 
logical meaning  and  no  more  would  always  adhere  to 
a  word;  but  if  this  name  Jahaveh  starts  from  the 
idea  of  being,  or  must  have  suggested  that  idea  at 
its  first  use,  the  expansion  of  the  conception  in  the 


The  Jahaveh  Religion.  21 

minds  of  thinking  persons  would  be  in  tlie  line  ol'  the 
primary  meaning. 

Now,  as  we  have  already  seen,  the  name  w^as 
introduced  at  what  the  tradition  makes  a  pretty 
advanced  stage  in  tlie  development  of  the  religion. 
By  the  time  of  Moses  the  Avliole  patriarchal  phase  of 
it  had  run  its  course;  and,  according  to  the  Biblical 
account,  the  earlier  conception  of  the  deity  had  been 
expressed  by  the  terms  El  and  Shaddai,  embodying 
the  simpler  ideas  of  strength,  i)ower.  Stade  himself 
tells  us  that  in  the  pre-Mosaic  religion,  the  name  El 
was  used  to  denote  the  native  spirit  or  spirits,  and 
the  name  Elohim  is  certainly  old.  And  just  as  the 
abstract  idea  of  being,  or  transitively  the  idea  of 
causing,  is  one  that  comes  comparatively  late  in 
consciousness,  or  at  least  does  not  come  at  the  primi- 
tive stage,  so  the  introduction  of  the  name  of  Jaha- 
veh, ^'  He  who  will  be,"  or  ''  who  will  cause  to  be," 
marks  a  point  of  advance  in  the  conception  of  the 
national  God.  It  is  therefore  fitly  placed  in  the  time 
of  Moses;  for  it  cannot  be  denied  that,  as  the  whole 
consciousness  of  Israel  looked  back  to  the  period  of 
the  exodus  as  a  new  era  in  their  national  life,  so  tlie 
belief  that  Jahaveh  was  their  God  from  Egypt  on- 
wards, as  it  is  expressed  by  Ilosea,  was  deeply  rooted 
in  the  nation's  mind  and  heart. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  frank  recognition  of  this 
fact,  so  firmly  embedded  in  the  national  life  and 
literature,  would  go  far  to  explain  the  striking  phe- 
nomena which  criticism  has  brought  into  clear  light; 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  refusal  to  accept  it 
frankly  has  led  modern  writers  to  the    precarious 


22  Early  Rel'Kj Ion  of  Israel. 

.shirtri  and  extrava^ij^ant  pu.sitioiis  wliicli  mark  liic 
course  of  their  disciuisitions.  They  look  I'or  de- 
velopinent,  Init  tliey  will  not  look  for  it  at  the  right 
place.  Instead  of  accepting  the  fact,  that  in  the 
l)atriarchal  period  there  was  already  a  knowledge  of 
God,  at  least  on  a  level  with,  and  presumably  higher 
than,  that  of  the  polytheistic  nations  around  Israel, 
they  insist  on  finding  the  transition  from  the  barest 
animal  religion  going  on  in  a  period  after  that  stage 
had,  for  the  enlightened  part  of  the  nation,  passed 
away.  Instead  of  accepting  the  fact  that  the  name 
Jahaveh  denotes  a  high  stage  achieved,  they  insist 
on  starting  with  that  name  as  embodying  the  most 
primary  conceptions;  and  in  tracing  the  develop- 
ment of  the  conception  in  the  hands  of  the  proi)hets, 
they  neglect  the  clue  given  to  the  development  in  the 
possession  of  the  name  itself.  I  take  my  stand  upon 
the  assumption  that  this  name  must  have  had  some 
meaning,  some  suggestion,  to  the  thinking  portion 
of  the  people,  and  must  have,  to  an  ap})recial)le  ex- 
tent, controlled  the  conceptions  of  God  which  were 
raised  in  the  mind  by  the  mention  of  the  name.  There 
were  other  names — El,  Elohim,  Shaddai,  Elyon. 
Baal,  Molech — all  of  which  may  have  been  used  to 
denote  deity;  but  each  and  all  of  them  have  a  specific 
meaning  attached  to  them,  and  Jahaveh  must  have 
also  had  its  meaning,  a  specific  meaning;  and  being 
a  special  proper  name,  must  have  been  intended  to 
denote  all  the  others  put  togetlier,  nay,  more  than 
all  the  others  combined,  else  tliere  would  have  been  no 
reason  for  the  introduction  of  a  new  nam(\  The 
question  is,  V\'liat  iras  that   meaning?     If  the   name 


The  Jahaveli  Religion.  23 

meant  merely  '-tlie  one  that  sends  clown  rain''  or 
*niiunderer,"  I  submit  that  that  does  not  go  beyond 
El  or  Shaddai,  and  would  not  therelbre  entitle  Jaha- 
veh  to  be  selected  as  the  highest  name  that  the  best 
could  bestow  on  God.  Tiiere  is  the  verb  ^^to  be- 
come "  lying  patent  as  a  verb  with  which  to  connect 
a  name  which  comes  to  supplement  or  to  comprehend 
all  the  other  names.  And  the  name  is  put  at  the 
very  period  when  the  nation's  consciousness  of  a 
destiny  before  it  is  represented  as  appearing.  All 
this  cannot  be  fortuitous,  nor  is  it  likely  to  have  oc- 
curred as  a  happy  thought  to  the  early  writers  who 
have  left  us  these  traditions.  The  conclusion  seems 
well  justified,  that,  with  the  use  of  the  name  Jahaveh, 
the  idea  seized  the  mind  of  Moses  and  his  successors 
that  the  God  they  worshipped  was  one  of  ever-de- 
veloping potency,  an  ever  self-manifesting,  ever 
actively-defending  God,  whose  character  was  not  so 
much  denoted  by  a  quality  as  by  a  constant  activity, 
or  rather  (judged  by  the  analogy  of  similar  personal 
names)  by  a  person  ever  active;  that  in  fact,  as  a 
nation  does  not  die,  so  their  national  God  would  ever 
be  with  them.  The  name  comes  in  at  a  definite  histori- 
cal crisis  in  the  nation's  life,  and  was  meant  to  indicate 
that  the  deity  so  named  was  concerned,  not  merely 
with  natural  phenomena,  but  with  national  and  his- 
torical events. 

Let  us  try  to  think  of  Moses  proclaiming  to  his 
people  a  new  name  that  they  had  never  heard  before, 
or  heard  only  as  the  name  of  the  sender  of  the  light- 
ning, and  his  saying  to  Israel — and  with  eifect — 
' '  this  Thunderer  is  to  be  your  only  God  for  all  time 


24  Early  Eeligion  of  Israel. 

coming."  The  question  ^oulcl  naturally  arise, 
"Who  is  Jahaveh  that  we  should  serve  Him?  We 
know  what  is  meant  by  a  ^Strong  One,'  a  'Lord,'  a 
'Master,'  a  'Most  High  One'  (for  kindred  nations 
had  called  their  gods  by  such  names  as  far  back  as 
we  have  knowledge,  and  why  should  the  Hebrews 
be  placed  beneath  them  in  intelligence?).  But  who 
is  the  sender  of  rain  or  of  thunder  any  more  to  us 
than  the  deity  we  already  worship?  What  is  He  to 
us,  or  what  are  we  to  Him  in  particular,  that  we 
should  be  thus  wedded  together? "  The  only  answer 
that  he  could  conceivably  have  given  to  such  most 
obvious  questions  is,  that  Jahaveh  had  done  some- 
thing for  them  to  claim  their  regard.  People  do  not 
set  up  gods  for  nothing.  What  then  had  Jahaveh 
done  for  them?  Wellhausen  comes  to  our  aid  (though 
Stade  refuses  to  go  so  far),  and  tells  us  that  the 
people  had  experienced  His  power  in  the  deliver- 
ance from  Egypt.  ^  This  is  a  reasonable  account  to 
give;  but  it  only  raises  another  question,  ''Who 
was  this  that  interfered  on  behalf  of  a  nation  of 
slaves  in  Egypt,  and  why  did  He  interfere?"  And 
the  only  answer  that  all  these  questions  admit  of  is 
just  the  Biblical  answer,  ''The  God  of  our  fathers 
hath  appeared  to  me:  "  in  other  words,  there  is  a 
linking  on  of  the  deliveranc3  of  the  present  to  the 
recollections  of  the  past;  the  God  of  Abraham  is  not 
dead,  but  alive  and  acting  on  behalf  of  Al)raham's 
seed;  and  in  commemoration  of  the  new  deliverance, 

1  W.^llliaiisen.  Hist  of  Israel,  pp.  429-433:  of.  here  Kuenen,  ReHg. 
of  Isnicl.  vol  i  p.  '^TC  ff.  Stade  will  not  even  admit  that  the  Israelites, 
In  any  appreciable  sense,  ever  sojourned  in  Egypt.  "  If  any  Hebrew 
clan  dwelt  in  Egypt,"  he  says.  "  no  one  knows  its  name.  "— Geschichte, 
vol    i.  p,  i:e. 


The  Jahaveh  Religion.  25 

and  to  mark  a  new  era,  He  receives  or  adopts  a 
new  name,  distinctive  from  mere  appellations  oi' 
deity  generally,  and  the  God  of  pre-Mosaic  times  is 
the  same  God  in  fuller  manifestation  still.  Moses, 
says  Prof.  A.  B.  Davidson,  ''stamped  an  impress 
upon  the  people  of  Israel  which  was  never  efiaced, 
and  planted  seeds  in  the  mind  of  the  nation  which 
the  crop  of  thorns  that  sprang  up  after  his  death 
could  not  altogether  choke.  Of  course,  even  he  did 
not  create  a  nation  or  a  religious  consciousness  in 
the  sense  of  making  it  out  of  nothing.  When  he  ap- 
pealed to  the  people  in  Egypt  in  the  name  of  Jeho- 
vah their  God,  he  did  not  conjure  with  an  abstrac- 
tion or  a  novelty.  The  people  had  some  knowledge 
of  Jehovah,  some  faith  in  Him,  or  His  name  would 
not  have  awakened  them  to  religious  or  national 
life.  In  matters  like  this  we  never  can  get  at  the 
beginning.  The  patriarchal  age,  with  its  knowledge 
of  God,  is  not  altogether  a  shadow,  otherwise  the 
hi.^tory  of  the  exodus  would  be  a  riddle.  Moses 
found  materials,  but  he  passed  a  new  fire  through 
them,  and  welded  them  into  a  unity;  he  breathed  a 
spirit  into  the  people,  which  animated  it  for  all  time 
to  come;  and  this  spirit  can  have  been  no  other  than 
the  spirit  that  animated  himself."  ^ 

The  importance  of  dwelling  on  this  question  of  the 
meaning  attached  to  the  name  of  Israel's  national 
God  in  its  initial  conception  and  at  its  first  use  will 
be  self-evident.  It  brings  to  a  point  the  sharp  con- 
trast between  the  Biblical  account  of  the  matter  and 
the  views  presented  by  writers  of  the  modern  criti- 

1  Expositor,  third  series,  vol.  v.  p.  42. 


26  Earltj  Pielir/ion  of  Israel. 

cal  school.  We  may  say,  in  a  genera]  way,  that  the 
various  aspects  of  the  pre-prophetic  religion,  as  we 
liave  seen  them  put  forward  in  the  preceding  chap- 
ters, have  this  in  common,  that  they  represent 
the  Jahaveh  of  pre-prophetic  times  as  a  being  rather 
of  might  than  of  moral  greatness,  a  nature-God  rather 
than  a  God  of  nature,  the  only  national  God  of  Israel 
indeed,  yet,  except  in  this  particular,  very  little  if 
anything  different  from  the  gods  of  the  surrounding 
nations  even  in  the  estimation  of  His  OAvn  worship- 
pers. Such  representations  of  Jahaveh  are  the  nat- 
ural development  of  the  initial  conception  with 
which  these  writers  start.  Wellliausen  says^  that 
''no  essential  distinction  was  felt  to  exist  between 
Jehovah  and  El,  any  more  than  ])etween  Assliur 
and  El;  "  and  Stadc  tells  us  that  El  denotes  a  super- 
human being,  though  not  sharjily  separated  from  na- 
ture in  which  he  operates.  Each  place  had  its  El, 
and  the  collective  Elim  or  Eloliim  was  the  sum  of 
these,  or  the  expression  in  a  plural  of  majesty,  of  the 
power  of  these  superliuman  beings.^  According  to  the 
view  of  these  writers,  tlien,  the  name  Jahaveh,  given 
originally  to  a  family  or  tribal  god,  either  of  the  fam- 
ily of  Moses  or  tribe  of  Joseph,  as  Wellhausen"'  sup- 
poses, or  of  the  tribe  of  the  Kenites  as  Stade  thinks, 
implied  no  more  than  El;  only,  having  become  cur- 
rent within  a  powerful  circle,  it  ''was  on  that  ac- 
count all  the  more  fitted  to  become  the  designation 
of  a  national  God." 

But  if  there  is  any  force  at  all  in  the  considera- 

1  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  433.  -  Stadc,  Ge.si-hi«.-2ile,  vol.  i.  p.  428, 

■i  Hist,  '.f  Israel,  p.  433. 


Tlie  Jaliaveh  Bellgion.  21 

tions  that  have  been  put  forward,  that  this  name 
Jahaveh  is  not  of  foreign  but  of  Israelitish  origin, 
that  as  a  separate  and  new  name  it  must  have  indi- 
cated something  more  than  other  names  already  ex- 
isting, and  that  in  its  derivation  or  innnediate  sug- 
gestion it  liad  the  sense  of  '^becoming,"  then  we 
must  demand  for  tlie  initial  stage  of  the  Jahaveh  re- 
ligion a  much  higher  level  than  the  critical  school  al- 
lows. In  addition  to  this  general  remark,  there  are 
the  following  points  again  to  be  insisted  on: — 

(1.)  There  is  absolutely  no  proof  that  Jahaveh  was 
originally  the  name  of  a  family  or  tribal  god  in  the 
sense  understood  by  these  writers.  Even  if  the  name 
of  the  mother  of  Moses  be  taken  as  an  indication  that 
the  name  was  known  in  the  circle  of  his  family,  there 
is  no  proof  that  it  denoted  no  more  than  El  or  a 
superhuman  nature-spirit. 

(2.)  And  then  no  reason  is  assigned  for  the  name 
Jahaveh  superseding  El  or  the  Elim,  if,  according 
to  the  hypothesis,  it  signified  no  more  than  these 
names.  Dilhnann  remarks  ^  that  wherever  an  actual 
change  in  the  religion  of  a  people  takes  place,  there 
is  ever  a  historical  consciousness  of  the  fact  pre- 
served among  them.  The  assertion  that  this  name 
was  a  special  name  of  El,  which  had  become  current 
in  a  powerful  circle,  and  on  that  account  was  all  the 
more  fitted  to  become  the  designation  of  a  national 
god,  is,  in  tiie  first  place,  destitute  of  historical 
proof,  and,  in  the  second  place,  most  improbable.  If 
the  introduction  of  the  name  was  connected  with 
some  striking  event,  such  as  the  exodus,  we  should 

1  Urspruns  der  AUtesU.  ReUgion,  p.  6,  quoted  by  Baudissin,  Jahve  et 
Moloch,  p.  77. 


28  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

expect  the  name  to  mark  an  advance — as  the  Bibli- 
cal writers  represent — on  the  conception;  but  ac- 
cordin^j:  to  the  modern  view,  Jahaveh  still  remains  a 
nature-God:  although  a  national  God,  His  attributes 
are  almost  entirely  physical. 

(3.)  In  the  next  place,  though  the  proofs  from  Scrip- 
ture which  Stade,  for  example,  advances  in  support 
of  his  picture  of  the  character  of  the  pi-e-prophetic 
Jahaveh,  are  selected  and  manipulated  in  the  extra- 
ordinary fashion  to  which  reference  has  already  been 
made,^  yet  it  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  form  a  con- 
ception of  the  character  he  seeks  to  delineate.  He 
roams  at  will  over  Genesis,  the  historical  books,  and 
even  the  prophets,  finding  in  later  productions 
proofs  of  a  low  tone,  and  in  the  earlier  books 
proofs  of  a  high  tone  of  religious  thought,  till  it  is 
absolutely  impossible  to  make  out  wiiat  the  initial 
conception  of  Jahaveh,  in  his  theory,  could  have 
been.  An  example  may  be  taken  from  his  treatment 
of  the  story  of  Elijah.  At  one  time,  in  the  midst  of 
his  argument  to  proT'e  that  Jahaveh's  power  was 
confined  to  His  own  land,  he  tells ^  us  that  Elijali, 
who  fights  valiantly  in  the  land  of  Israel  against  the 
worship  of  Baal,  yet  goes  and  lives  with  a  widow  at 
Sarepta,  who  must  have  been  a  Baal-worshipper, 
and  eats  her  food,  which  would  be  consecrated  by 
ofiering  to  Baal — touches  for  which  there  is  absolutely 
no  warrant,  and  which  make  the  character  of  the 
^'prophet  of  fire,"  as  drawn  by  the  narrator,  simply 
incomprehensible.  Presently  he  tells  us  that  in  this 
same  story  of  Elijah  the  belief  finds  expression  that 

»  In  chap.  vin.  p.  205.  2  Stade.  Geschichte.  vol.  1.  p.  480. 


The  Jahaveh  Religion.  29 

Jahaveh  accompanies  His  worshippers  in  their 
wanderings,  for  lie  performs  miracles  at  Sarepta  at 
the  prophet's  request,  and  sends  him  back  to  his 
own  land.^  This  same  belief,  he  says,  is  expressed 
in  the  promise  to  be  with  Jacob  (Gen.  xxviii.  15,  J.), 
in  His  being  with  Joseph  in  Egypt  (Gen.  xxxix.  2, 
J.),  and  in  His  going  down  to  Egypt  with  Jacob 
(Gen.  xlvi.  3  f.,  J.  and  E.)  And  in  order  to  prove 
the  same  thing  he  refers  to  a  passage  as  late  as 
Isaiah  xix.,  where  the  prophet  speaks  of  Jahaveh 
riding  on  a  swift  cloud  and  coming  to  Egypt,  and 
the  idols  being  moved  at  his  presence.  Similarly  he 
proceeds  in  speaking  of  Jahaveh's  power.  The 
conceptions  of  all-mightiness  and  omniscience,  we 
are  told,  are  not  yet  reached.  That  He  was  not 
regarded  as  knowing  all  things  is  seen  from  the 
patriarchal  stories,  which  speak,  for  example,  of 
God  going  down  to  Sodom  to  see  whether  its  con- 
dition was  such  as  the  cry  represented  it.^  Still  the 
same  God  knows  Sarah's  thoughts,  and  the  belief  in 
the  oracle  shows  that  He  was  regarded  as  having  a 
knowledge  of  secrets  such  as  children  ascribe  to  God. 
His  power  came  in  the  same  way  to  be  represented 
by  the  religious  sentiment  as  adequate  to  anything, 
as  appears  in  the  saying,  ^ '  Is  anything  too  hard  for 
Jahaveh?"  (Gen.  xviii.  14);  and  in  that  other  say- 
ing, "There  is  no  restraint  to  Jahaveh  to  save  by 
many  or  by  few"  (1  Sam.  xiv.  6).  So  He  performs 
wonders,  shakes  the  earth,  overthrows  cities,  pun- 
ishes His  land  with  famine  and  plague,  and  slays 
men  without  any  apparent  disease.     One  other  ex- 

1  Ibid.,  p.  431.  -  Stade,  Geschlchte,  vol.  1.  p.  432. 


30  Early  Beligion  of  Israel. 

ample  may  be  given  of  Stade's  reasoning.  Tlie 
preponderance  of  the  idea  of  miglit  in  the  conception 
of  God,  he  says,  combined  with  the  fact  that  in  a 
primitive  age  the  difi'erence  between  evil  and  mis- 
fortune was  not  apprehended,  hindered  men  from 
regarding  Jahaveh  as  a  Being  who  always  acted  for 
moral  ends.  Traces  of  a  higher  conception  are  not 
indeed  wanting  in  the  pre-prophetic  age.  Jahaveh, 
as  the  defender  of  His  people  and  of  the  land,  is  the 
guardian  of  moral  customs,  the  avenger  of  broken 
covenants,  and  so  far  as  concerns  the  relations  of 
one  Israelite  to  another,  His  will  is  the  expression 
of  moral  and  just  rule.^  Thus  He  avenges  a  broken 
oath,  and  fulfils  the  prayer  of  the  unjustly  oppressed. 
Especially  is  He  the  avenger  of  innocent  blood, 
which  cries  to  Him  from  the  ground  (Gen.  iv.  10, 
xlii.  22,  E.)  So,  as  He  is  the  God  of  the  land,  He 
maintains  law  and  order  in  it,  punishing — e.g. ,  Sodom 
and  Gomorrah — for  breaking  it.  By  such  advances 
as  these  the  idea  of  holiness  was  enlarged  and  puri- 
fied in  later  times.  But  in  earlier  times  these  ideas 
did  not  extend  to  the  general  course  of  events,  and 
to  the  relation  of  Israelites  to  non-Israelites  and  the 
surrounding  world.  In  such  matters  moral  concep- 
tions are  so  little  apparent,  that  God  is  the  author 
even  of  evil.  Men  had  not  reached  the  belief  in  a 
world  in  which  imperfection  was  necessarily  in- 
volved, and  of  evil  left  for  a  time  even  for  the  sake 
of  the  good.  Accordingly,  wlien  we  would  say  (iod 
permits  this  or  that,  the  ancient  Israelite  said  straight 
out  tliat  Jahaveh  did  it.^     P]vil  and  misfortune  are 

1  Ibid.,  p.  434.  *-  Stade.  Geschichte,  vol.  i.  p.  435. 


The  Jaliaveh  Religion.  31 

exprcsst'd  by  one  word,  ra ;  and  Amos  says  (iii. 
(i),  "Is  there  evil  in  the  city,  and  Jahavch  has  not 
done  it?"  And  not  only  outward  calamities,  but 
the  evil  passions  and  inner  impulses  of  men,  are 
ascribed  to  Jahaveh;  and,  as  among  heathen  na- 
tions, He  is  believed  to  make  people  mad,  or 
leads  them  on  to  do  things  which  will  bring  down 
His  own  wrath.  Thus  the  schism  of  the  kingdoms, 
the  greatest  misfortune  to  Israel,  was  from  Jahaveh 
(1  Kings  xii.  15).  So  He  sends  a  l3'ing  spirit 
among  the  prophets  of  Ahab,  that  the  king  may  be 
led  to  go  confidently  against  Ramoth-Gilead,  and 
only  the  prophet  Micali  remains  unmoved  (1  Kings 
xxii.  20  ff.)  So  He  sends  an  evil  spirit  between 
Abimelech  and  the  Shechemites.  And  that  this  is 
not  merely  or  in  all  cases  a  punishment  for  former 
transgression,  is  proved  by  the  remarkable  passage 
(1  Sam.  xxvi.  19)  in  which  David  says  to  Saul,  ^^If 
Jahaveh  hath  stirred  thee  up  against  me,  let  him 
accept  an  offering;  but  if  it  be  men  let  them  be 
accursed  of  Jahaveh." 

This  kind  of  reasoning  may  be  carried  out  in- 
definitely, but  though  it  ma}^  make  a  big  book,  it 
does  not  amount  to  a  strong  argument.  Stade  does 
not  or  will  not  see  that  by  thus  heaping  together 
texts  referring  to  different  periods  within  or  beyond 
the  prophetic  period  indiscriminately,  he  is  destroy- 
ing the  position  he  holds  tliat  the  prophetic  religion 
is  an  advance  on  the  pre-prophetic.  And  when  he 
finds  in  such  a  writer  as  Amos,  or  even  Isaiah,  in- 
stances of  the  lower  type  of  conception,  what  be- 
comes of  the  position  that  liigher  types  found  in 


32  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

Genesis,  e.r/.,  are  ^' signs  of  advance"  or  ^M^reaking 
down"  of  narrow  views?  What  we  want  to  know  is 
the  alleged  initial  stage  at  which  the  national  God 
was  no  more  than  El^  a  nature-God;  and  instead  of 
this  we  get  this  mixing  up  of  early  and  late 
which  is  quite  unintelligible.  The  truth  is,  the 
difficulty  he  finds  in  reconciling  the  contradictory  or 
conflicting  statements  of  contemporaneous  authori- 
ties arises  simply  from  the  fact  that  the  '^  higher" 
or  moral  conception  is  present  from  the  first.  In 
opposition  to  all  this  kind  of  reasoning  I  would  take 
my  stand  upon  the  reasonable  principle,  that  in 
Avritings  belonging  practically  to  the  same  period 
the  lower  expressions  are  to  be  controlled  by  the 
higher,  and  that  one  statement  in  plain  terms 
should  outweigh  any  amount  of  metaphorical  or 
figurative  language.  The  Hebrew  writers  employ 
the  boldest  anthropomorphisms,  for  example;  but  as 
Stade  himself  says,  this  was  a  necessity  for  people 
unaccustomed  to  philosophical  speculation:  it  is 
more,  it  is  a  necessity  of  religious  language.  Nor 
are  they  afraid  to  employ  the  most  simple  and  child- 
like expressions;  but  there  is  ever  the  absence  of 
gross  conceptions,  and  ever  and  anon  the  utterance 
of  the  most  exalted  ideas,  showing  what  the  essen- 
tial character  of  Jahaveh,  in  their  opinion,  was. 
Side  by  side  with  the  boldest  anthropomorphisms 
are  found  the  most  spiritual  expressions,  and  the 
same  writers  who  speak  of  Jahaveh  as  having 
a  local  seat  ascribe  to  Him  control  over  all  the 
nations  of  the  world.  In  view  of  all  this  it  is  sheer 
trifling  to  explain  the  one  set  of  expressions  as  rem- 


The  Jahaveh  Religion.  33 

nants  of  a  belief  in  a  nature-God,  and  the  other  as 
signs  of  a  breaking  down  of  narrow  views.  The 
Hebrew  writers,  from  the  earliest  times  at  which  we 
have  access  to  their  words,  are  on  a  higher  plane  of 
thought  than  the  modern  critics  will  allow;  and  just 
because  they  arc  so  firmly  fixed  there,  they  do  not 
hesitate  to  employ  the  boldest  pictorial  or  meta- 
phorical language  to  express  their  thoughts. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

ETHIC   MONOTHEISM. 

The  great  objection  to  the  modern  account  of  the  Jahareh 
religion — /.  Necessity  of  2^ostulating  moral  elements  in 
JahaxeKs  character,  and  how  their  origin  is  explained  by 
Stade — Distinctive  features  in  the  Jahaveh  religion  as 
stated  by  him — Jealousy,  and  sole  reverence — Examina- 
tion of  this:  (1)  Are  these  really  distinctive?  (2)  If  they 
are  really  so,  the  theory  is  at  fault,  for  no  sufficient  ex- 
2ylanation  of  their  origin  is  given — II.  Transition  to  ethic 
monotheism — Distinction  of  monolatry  and  monotheism — 
Proofs  of  monolatry — Jephthah — First  Commandment — 
Naming  of  gods  of  the  nations — Kuenen's  argument 
examined — Popular  conception  of  power  nourished  by 
political  events — Agreement  of  prophets  with  popular  idea 
in  fundamental  principles — Bise  beyond  this  on  the  ap- 
pearance of  the  Assyrian  piower — Ajyjyeal  again  to  earliest 
writing  prophets,  in  ichom  monotheism  is  not  nascent,  but 
fully  developed — The  prophets  claimed  to  be  the  true 
interpreters  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  religion 
— The  attribute  o/ grace  or  love  which  is  mttde  central  by 
Rosea,  gives  the  explanatio)i  of  the  origin  of  the  impular 
and  the  prophetic  views. 

The  difficulties  in  tlie  -way  of  accepting  tlie  modern 
account  are  seen  to  ])c  greatest  when  we  inquire 
wliat  it  was  tliat  distinguislied  the  Jnhaveh  religion 
from  the  religions  of  neighbouring  nations.  We  are 
told  ad  nauseam  the  points  in  which  it  resembled 


^ 


Etlilc  lloiiothci'Sm.  35<: 

them;  one  feature  after  another  is  toned  down  to  the 
level  of  nature  or  national  religion.  Yet  the  pre- 
prophetic  religion  must  have  had  something  distinct- 
ive to  mark  out  the  Israelites  from  their  neigh- 
bours, and  give  them  the  pride  in  their  national 
faith  which  they  })ossessed.  It  must  have  contained, 
moreover,  some  germ  which  by  way  of  development 
enabled  it  to  rise  to  the  so-called  ethic  monotheism 
of  the  prophets.  We  must  now  examine  the  modern 
theory  as  to  these  elements. 

I.  Stade,  in  drawing  his  picture  of  the  pre- 
prophetic  Jahaveh  as  a  national  deity  evolved  from 
a  nature-God,  is  bound,  as  we  have  seen,  to  put  in 
licre  and  there  features  of  a  more  elevated  and 
moral  character.  All  that  he  can  say  as  to  the 
origin  of  these  higher  conceptions  is,  that  they  arise 
not  from  mental  reflection,  but  from  religious  feeling 
and  impulse.  In  this  way,  for  example,  'Hhe  feel- 
ing arises"  that  Jahaveh,  although  the  God  of  the 
land  of  Israel  only,  will  accompany  His  worshipper 
into  a  foreign  country;  and  also,  ^Hhe  confidence 
arises  "  that  He  will  be  more  powerful  than  the  gods 
of  the  heathen,  just  as  Israel  itself,  when  in  cap- 
tivity, bursts  its  bonds.  These  two  ideas  blend  into 
the  conviction  that  Jahaveh,  brought  willingly  or  by 
force  into  a  strange  land,  will  there  show  His  power 
by  inflicting  evil  on  the  heathen  gods,  as  happened 
to  Dagon  at  Gath,  and  as  is  indicated  in  the  pas- 
sage of  Isaiah  to  which  reference  has  already  been 
made.  And,  more  particularly,  he  strives  to  find, 
amid  all  the  features  that  arc  common  to  Jahaveh 
and  the  heathen  gods,  some  distinctive  characteris- 


36  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

tics  which  will  insure  the  Jahaveh  religion  having 
an  independent  existence  and  a  possible  dcATlop- 
ment.  In  this  connection  he  lays  particular  stress 
on  two  things: — 

(1.)  While  the  early  Israelite  conceptions  of 
Jahaveh's  power  and  holiness  are  in  strict  analogy 
with  the  heathen  conception  of  their  gods,  there  is  one 
element,  he  says,  which  distinguishes  the  religion  of 
Israel.  The  anger  of  Jahaveh  takes  the  form  of 
jealousy  of  the  worship  of  any  other  God-  which 
worship  He  avenges  and  punishes.  And  this  idea, 
which  attains  its  full  developmoiit  in  the  teacliing  of 
the  prophets,  is  an  element  of  the  Mosaic  religion. 
On  Stade's  theory  the  power  of  Jahaveh  is  first  of 
all  thought  of  as  a  terrifying  attribute,  for  He  is  the 
God  of  the  storm,  and  the  idea  is  not  for  some  time 
reached  that  divine  might  must  be  exercised  on  the 
side  of  good.  His  holiness  also  is  merely  majesty 
jealous  of  its  honour,  and  insisting  on  due  reverence, 
so  that  the  bounds  between  Him  and  man  are  not  to 
be  trespassed  with  impunity.  Instances  illustrating 
this  are  found  in  the  judgments  that  befell  the  people 
of  Beth-shemesh  and  Uzzah,  for  looking  into  or 
touching  the  ark,  the  symbol  of  His  presence;  and 
the  idea  is  found  as  late  as  Isaiah  (viii.  14),  who 
speaks  of  a  sanctuary  as  an  object  of  terror.^  This 
representation  of  Jahaveh,  however,  assumes  a 
milder  form  and  kindlier  aspect  from  the  fact  that 
He  is  Israel's  God,  and  will  defend  His  own  people. 
But  it  is  to  be  noted  that,  while  He  is  true  and 
faithful  to  His  own,  the  counterpart  of  His  faithful- 

1  Stade,  Geschichto,  vol.  I.  p.  434. 


Ethic  Monotheism.  37 

ness  to  Israel  is  His  anger  against  Israel's  foes. 
This  is  seen  chiefly  in  war.  The  oldest  monument 
of  Hebrew  poetry,  the  song  of  Deborah,  represents 
Him  as  coming  from  Sinai  to  discomfit  the  army 
of  Sisera,  and  Meroz  is  cursed  because  it  did  not 
come  to  the  help  of  the  Lord  against  the  mighty/ 
A  trace  of  the  same  idea  is  found  in  the  title 
of  the  'Book  of  the  Wars  of  Jahaveh,'  and  in 
Abigail's  speaking  of  David  fighting  Jahaveh's 
battles.  So  the  ark,  according  to  the  oldest  views, 
was  taken  into  the  battle,  and  Jahaveh  was  the 
''Lord  of  hosts." 

(2.)  Another  fundamental  point  of  difference  be- 
tween the  pre-prophetic  religion  of  Israel  and  hea- 
then systems,  according  to  Stade,  is  tliis:^  Whereas 
in  Greece,  Rome,  and  Egypt,  the  worship  of  ances- 
tors and  reverence  for  founders  of  tribes  re- 
mained alongside  the  worship  of  the  gods — the 
latter  remaining  at  the  head  of  what  came  to  be 
a  family,  consisting  of  gods,  half-gods,  and  heroes, 
so  that  the  inferior  gods  really  came  to  receive  the 
greater  homage  from  the  mass  of  the  people — this 
development  never  took  place  in  Israel.  Tliey 
have  no  mythology,  and  the  reason  is  that  Jahaveh 
did  not  admit  the  worship  either  of  ancestors  or  of 
heavenly  bodies  along  with  His  own.  His  wor- 
ship is  directly  opposed  to  such,  and  so  gradu- 
ally eliminated  it.  And  we  have  neither  the  slight- 
est trace  in  Israel  of  Jahaveh  being  regarded  as  a 
primus  inter  pares,  nor  of  His  having  a  consort  as 
Baal  had  in  Astarte. 

1  Geschiclite,  vol.  1.  p.  437.  2  ibid.,  p.  438  f. 


38  Early  lielUjlon  of  Israel. 

This  (listingiiisliing  feature  of  the  Jahaveh  re- 
ligion, Stade  concludes,  cannot  be  traced  to  any 
peculiarity  in  the  Semitic  race,  for  other  members 
of  the  Semitic  family  exhibit  polytheism  exactly  like 
that  of  Greece.  It  can  only  be  explained  on  the 
supposition  that  from  the  moment  Israel  received 
the  Jahaveh  religion  His  character  was  differently 
apprehended  from  that  of  the  polytheistic  gods. 
But  Avhen  we  expect  him  to  tell  us  what  the  element 
in  Jahaveh's  character  was  which  thus  distinguished 
Ilim,  this  is  what  he  tells  us:  The  distinguishing 
thought  which  made  this  religion  of  Jahaveh  dif- 
ferent from  these  can  only  have  been  that  Jahaveh 
was  the  only  God  of  Israel,  and  therefore  His  wor- 
shij)  excluded  that  of  all  other  gods.  Had  not  this 
idea  been  firmly  held  from  the  beginning,  consider- 
ing the  temptations  that  lay  on  every  side,  from 
the  time  tlie  tribes  entered  Canaan,  to  polytheistic 
views,  the  result  could  not  have  been  the  view  of 
Jahaveh's  unity  that  came  to  prevail.  It  goes  back 
for  initiation  to  the  founder  of  the  religion.  This 
much  is  due  to  the  work  and  the  thought  of  Moses. ^ 

These  statements  of  Stade  deserve  to  be  well 
weighed.     They  suggest  two  questions: — 

(1.)  Are  the  points  which  he  marks  out  as  dis- 
tinctive of  the  Jahaveh  religion  actual  points  of  dif- 
ference from  other  Semitic  religions  as  these  are 
understood  by  himself?  He  and  other  writers  of 
his  school  are  never  tired  of  telling  us  that  Jahaveh 
was  the  God  of  Israel  or  of  Canaan,  just  as  Chemosh 
was  the  god  of  Moab.     And  Kuenen  says  plainly  ^ 

1  Geschichte,  vol.  i.  p.  439.  »  National  Religions,  p.  118. 


Etliic  Monotheism.  39 

tluit  though  Jaluivi'h  was  believed  by  Israel  to  be 
miglitier  than  the  gods  of  other  nations,  there  was 
nothing  in  this  to  distinguish  the  Israelite  religion, 
for  this  was  the  belief  of  the  Moabite  Avitli  regard  to 
Camosh  (Chemosh),  and  of  the  Ammonite  with  re- 
gard to  Malcani  (Moloch).  As  to  the  national  god 
being  able  to  follow  his  worshipper  and  defend  him 
in  a  strange  land,  the  inscription  of  Salmsezab,  re- 
ferred to  by  Renan,  is  urged  in  proof  that  this  was 
a  common  belief.  As  to  its  being  a  distinction  that 
Jahaveh  was  at  the  first  declared  to  be  the  sole 
deity  to  be  reverenced  in  Israel,  the  neighbouring 
nations  also  had  each  their  national  and  exclusive 
god.  If  Stade  should  reply  that  these  nations  ad- 
mitted the  recognition  and  worship  of  other  gods 
alongside  their  national  god,  why,  this  is  the  very 
thing  that  he  and  his  school  say  the  Israelites  all 
did  up  to  the  time  of  the  prophets.  It  is  they  also 
who  point  to  the  obscure  passage  in  the  book  of 
Kings  to  prove  that  the  god  of  the  Moabites  was 
stirred  up  by  the  horrible  sacrifice  of  the  king's 
first-born  to  defend  his  own  people;  so  that  the 
jealousy  of  one  national  god  against  another,  which 
Stade  makes  a  distinctive  mark  of  the  Jaliaveh  re- 
ligion, is,  on  his  own  princi]:)le,  a  common  belief 

(2.)  If  these  points  are  really  distinctive  of  the 
Jahaveh  religion  in  any  significant  sense,  then  what 
l)ecomes  of  the  whole  position  of  Stade  and  his 
school,  that  the  Jahaveh  religion  was  at  first  a  mere 
nature-worship?  On  this  ground  it  is  not  a  question 
of  showing  how  i)re-])ropIietic  Jahavism  was  purified 
and  exalted  ])y  the  prophets;  it  is  a  question  of  ex- 


40  Early  Beliglon  of  Israel. 

plaining  tliis  initial  distinctiveness  which  runs  back 
to  Mosaic  times.  How  can  Stade  explain  the  man- 
ner in  which  a  mere  nature-god  was  adopted  by 
Israel,  and  made  from  the  beginning  the  sole  object 
of  worship?  When  he  says  that  the  character  of 
Jahaveh  was  from  the  first  differently  apprehended 
from  that  of  the  heathen  gods,  this  is  just  what  the 
Biblical  writers  say.  But  when  he  goes  on  to  say 
that  the  distinguishing  thing  was  that  this  God 
alone  was  to  be  Israel's  God,  he  is  giving  no  ade- 
quate explanation.  The  question  is,  Why  was  Jaha- 
veh regarded  as  Israel's  God  to  the  exclusion  of  all 
others?  and  Stade  answers.  Because  from  the  first 
He  was  so  regarded.  Surely  it  was  something  in 
His  character,  something  that  He  did  or  was  believed 
to  have  done,  that  gave  Him  this  pre-eminence. 
But  Stade,  held  fast  in  his  naturalistic  theory,  can- 
not admit  this,  and  so  lands  himself  in  helpless  con- 
fusion. The  distinctive  elements  of  the  Jahaveh 
religion,  as  he  puts  them,  arc  not  distinctive  at  all; 
or  if  they  arc,  they  are  distinctive  in  a  much  higher 
sense  than  he  ascribes  to  them. 

II.  The  modern  theory,  it  seems  to  me,  thus 
breaks  down  utterly  at  this  the  initial  point;  and  I 
do  not  think  it  can  establish  itself  any  more  success- 
fully in  explaining  the  development  at  the  other  end 
— I.e.,  in  accounting  for  the  alleged  transition  from 
belief  in  a  merely  national  god  to  the  ^^  ethic  mono- 
theism," as  it  is  called,  of  the  prophets.  On  this 
subject  writers  of  the  modern  critical  school  ^  draw 
aR  intelligible  distinction  between   monolatry  and 

1  Statle.  Geschichto.  vol.  i.  pp.  428  £f.,  507. 


Ethic  Monotheism.  41 

monotheism — i.e.^  the  worship  of  one  God,  and  the 
belief  that  there  is  only  one  God.^  The  ancient 
Israelites,  says  Stade,  were  theoretically  polytheists, 
but  practically  monotheists:  they  believed  in  the  ex- 
istence of  Chemosh,  the  god  of  Moab;  of  Milkom 
(Moloch),  the  god  of  the  Ammonites;  and  Baalzebub, 
the  god  of  the  Ekronites,  and  others,  just  as  they  be- 
lieved in  the  existence  of  Jahaveh,  their  own  God. 
The  distinction  which  they  drew  was  not  between 
God  and  idols,  or  between  God  and  no-gods,  but  be- 
tween Jahaveh  and  the  ''  gods  of  the  nations."  This 
explains  the  expression  ^'the  God  of  the  Hebrews" 
(Exod.  iii.  18,  &c.),  and  the  other  expression  ^^  Ja- 
haveh the  God  of  Israel"  (Judges  xi.  21,  &c.),  and 
even  the  mode  of  speaking  of  the  God  of  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob.  The  idea  of  a  universe,  he  says, 
was  beyond  the  comprehension  of  a  people  who 
knew  only  the  countries  round  about  Canaan;  and 
the  passages  that  represent  God  as  the  Creator  of  all 
things  are  the  product  of  later  times.  Such  pas- 
sages as  Amos  v.  8,  9,  which  are  from  an  early  book, 
are  inconvenient  for  this  theory,  and  accordingly  are 
set  aside  as  disturbing  the  progress  of  the  discourse, 
and  probably  not  genuine."^     But  this  is  a  trifle. 

The  argument  at  first  sight  seems  forcible,  but  on 
examination  it  will  be  found  not  to  sustain  the  posi- 
tion which  it  is  used  to  support.  No  doubt  the  Bib- 
lical writers  continually  speak  of  the  gods  of  the  na- 
tions by  name,  as  if  they  believed  in  their  existence 
and  operation.     So  docs   Milton  in   his   'Paradise 

1  See  Note  XXI. 

2  Kuenen,  National  Relig.,  p.  li:?.    Comp.  above,  chap.  vl.  p.  146. 


42.  Earhj  Rdlcjion  of  Isnid. 

Lost*'  The  passage  (Judges  xi.  24)  in  which  Jeph- 
thah  says  to  Moab,  ^ '  Wilt  not  thou  possess  that 
which  Chemosh  thy  god  giveth  thee  to  possess?" 
seems  to  be  quite  decisive  on  this  point;  and  so  it 
has  been  referred  to  constantly  from  Yatke  ^  to  Well- 
hausen  ^  to  prove  that  originally  '■ '  Israel  is  a  people 
just  like  other  people,  nor  is  even  his  relationship  to 
Jehovah  otherwise  conceived  of  than  is,  for  example, 
that  of  Moab  to  Chemosh."  But,  as  Dr.  Davidson 
has  pointed  out,^  Wellhauscn  invalidates  his  own  ar- 
gument when  in  another  place  *  he  makes  this  whole 
passage  an  interpolation  based  on  Numbers  xxi.  29, 
which  would  bring  it  well  down  in  the  age  of  the 
canonical  prophets.  Indeed,  as  Davidson  points 
out,  there  is  a  passage  of  Jeremiah  (xlviii.  7)  wliich 
would  prove  that  even  he  believed  in  the  godhead  of 
Chemosh, — a  proof  that  such  a  mode  of  reasoning 
has  no  force. 

So,  too,  the  language  of  the  Decalogue,  ^^Thou 
Shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  me,"  may  seem  at 
first  sight  to  imply  that  the  existence  of  other  gods 
was  taken  for  granted,  only  that  Jahaveh  alone  was 
to  be  worshipped  by  Israel.  On  this  I  cannot  do 
better  than  quote  the  thoughtful  words  of  Dr. 
Davidson: — 

"To  our  minds  such  a  statement  as  this,  that  Israel  shall  have 
no  God  but  Jehovah,  immediately  suggests  the  inquiry,  whether 
there  be  any  other  god  but  Ilim.  But  such  questions  miglit  not 
present  themselves  to  minds  of  a  diHoront  cast  from  oursatid  in 
early  times,  for  our  minds  are  quickened  by  all  the  speculations 


1  Blhl.  Thool.,  i>.  258.  '•;  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  235. 

3  Expositor,  third  .sorios,  vol.  v.  j).  49. 
■•  Seo  Bleok'8  Einloitun/^.  -Ito  Xn{\.,  p.  195, 


Eniic  Monotheism.  43 

about  God  which  have  filled  the  centuries  from  the  days  of 
Moses  to  our  owu.  We  may  uot  have  evidence  that  the  mind 
of  Israel  in  the  earliest  time  put  these  general  and  abstract 
questions  to  itself.  But  we  are  certainly  entirely  precluded  from 
inferring  from  the  form  of  the  first  commandment  that  the 
existence  of  other  gods  was  admitted,  only  that  Israel  should 
have  none  of  them.  For  if  we  consider  the  moral  element  of 
the  Code,  we  find  the  commandments  all  taking  the  same  nega- 
tive form ;  but  who  will  argue  that  when  Moses  said  to  Israel, 
Thou  shalt  not  kill,  he  made  murder  milawful  merely  in  Israel, 
without  feeling  that  it  was  unlawful  wherever  men  existed? "  ^ 

The  truth  is,  avc  have  here  to  do  with  an  instance 
of  the  imperfection  of  language  and  tlie  freaks  the 
human  mind  phnys  in  the  use  of  names.  How  was 
an  Israelite  to  speak  of  the  heathen  gods  unless  by 
using  their  names?  And  as  soon  as  we  give  a  thing 
a  name,  it  has  a  certain  existence  for  us.  St.  Paul 
tells  us  how  hard  it  was  for  Christians  in  his  day, 
accustomed  to  the  names  of  heathen  gods,  to  grasp 
the  fact  that  '^an  idol  is  nothing  in  the  world;  "^ 
and  even  at  tlie  present  day,  I  doubt  very  much 
whether  the  majority  of  people  who  speak  of  Jupiter 
and  Apollo  consciously  carry  in  their  minds  the 
conviction  that  these  are  mere  names  of  wliat  never 
had  existence.  ^  The  early  preachers  of  Christianity 
in  pagan  countries  had  the  utmost  difficulty  in  root- 
ing out  the  belief  in  heathen  gods.  So  long  as  the 
names  lingered,  the  unsophisticated  mind  assigned 

1  Expositor,  I.e.,  p.  41.  '  1  Cor.  viii.  4-7. 

3  An  amusing  Insttanco  of  iho  facility  with  which  the  name  takes  the 
place  of  the  thinj?  is  fiiniislied  l>y  Voltaire.  In  the  Latin  Bible  the 
witch  of  Endor  is  calle*!  Pythonissa  (in  the  LXX.  Evyao-TpiVvOos) ; 
and  Voltaire  arijued  that  since  the  name  Python  c-ould  not  have  been 
known  to  the  Hebrews  in  the  days  of  Saul,  this  liistory  cannot  have 
been  earlier  than  the  time  of  Alexander,  when  the  Greeks  traded  with 
the  Hebrews.  One  wonders  liow  many  of  Voltaire's  readers  perceived 
his  mistake. 


44  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

to  the  numen  an  actual  existence;  and  hence,  per- 
haps, we  may  explain  how  the  missionaries  and 
their  converts  turned  these  pagan  objects  of  worship 
into  demons  or  evil  spirits.  We  need  not  wonder, 
in  the  face  of  this  psychological  phenomenon,  if  the 
simple-minded  Hebrews  use  language  that  may  be 
drawn  into  a  wrong  sense.  If  they  asked  themselves 
at  all  wiiat  they  meant  by  such  language,  the  com- 
mon people  would  be  perhaps  as  perplexed  as,  e.g.^ 
an  ordinary  person  would  be  if  asked  to  explain 
what  Allah,  or  Moloch,  or  Asshur  is  in  his  mind. 
The  modern  Jew  would  not  admit  that  his  nation's 
God  is  the  Allah  of  the  Mohammedan;  but  are  we  to 
say  that  the  Jew  is  not  yet  a  monotheist?^  I  believe 
it  may  safely  be  asserted  that  there  is  not  a  single 
passage  in  the  Old  Testament  which  can  be  taken  to 
prove  that  the  leaders  of  religious  thought — pro- 
phets and  prophetic  men — ever  regarded  Jahaveh 
as  on  a  level  with  the  gods  of  the  nations,  as  no 
more  to  Israel,  no  more  in  the  world,  than  Chemosh 
or  Milcom  or  Baal  to  their  worshippers.  Nay,  there 
is  one  passage,  in  an  early  writing  too,  which  ought 
to  be  decisive  of  this  matter.  Elijah,  on  Carniel, 
is  represented  as  using  language  in  regard  to  the 
Phoenician  Baal  (1  Kings  xviii.  27)  which,  if  it  is 
taken  as  a  mockery  of  the  conceptions  of  the  Baal- 
worshippers,  is  in  striking  contrast  with  even  the 
boldest  anthropomorphisms  applied  by  Israelites  to 
their  God,  and,  in  any  case,  shows  that  this  prophet 
had  got  very  nearly  to,  if  he  had  not  actually  appre- 

i  Do  not  we  continue  to  speak  of  the  God  of  the  Clii'lstiau,  although 
we  believe  that  there  is  none  other? 


EtJiic  Monotheism.  45 

licnded,  the  truth  that  ^'an  idol  is  nothing  in  the 
woi'hl.  "  This  may  not  be  monotheism  in  an  abstract 
philosophical  sense— for  religion  was  to  Israel  not  a 
product  of  thought  but  an  instinct — yet  it  is  infinitely 
moi'C  than  the  bare  monolatry  of  which  modern 
writers  speak. 

We  come  now  to  consider  the  arguments  by  which 
it  is  sought  to  be  proved  how,  from  a  circumscribed 
national  monolatry,  in  which  Jahaveh  was  regarded 
as  the  only  God  of  Israel,  there  was  reached  the 
"ethic  monotheism"  of  the  prophets,  in  which  He  is 
viewed  as  the  God  of  the  whole  earth,  the  only  God. 
Here  we  take  for  our  guide  Kuenen,  who  has  devoted 
a  special  work  ^  to  the  subject. 

In  the  popular  conception,  says  Kuenen  (p.  118), 
Jahaveh  was  a  great  and  mighty  God,  mightier  than 
the  gods  of  other  nations.  And  this  popular  con- 
ception was  stimulated  and  supported  by  political 
events.  "  When  David  waged  the  wars  of  Yahweh 
with  a  strong  hand  (1  Sam.  xviii,  17;  xxv.  28),  and 
when  victory  crowned  his  arms,  he  made  Yahweh 
Himself  rise  in  the  popular  estimation,  Solomon's 
glory  shone  upon  the  deity  to  whom  he  had  conse- 
crated the  temple  in  his  capital.  "  In  this  popular 
conception  of  their  national  deity,  the  attribute  of 
micjlit  was  the  princii)al  element.  The  people  no 
doubt  ascril)ed  to  their  God  moral  attributes  (as  is 
proved  by  the  priestly  Torah),  but  these  were  only 
some  among  many  of  His  attributes,  and  in  the 
popular  conception  the  stage  of  an  ethical  character 
had  not  been  reached  (p.  115).     Jahaveh  as  a  very 

1  Hlbbert  Lecture  for  1882,National  ReUgions  and  Universal  ReHgions. 


46  FAnijj  Religion  of  Israel. 

mighty  One,  and  Jahaveh  inseparably  bound  to 
Israel  His  people,  these  were  tlie  fundamental  ideas 
of  the  popular  religion.  In  proof  of  this,  Kuenen 
appeals  to  the  historical  books  of  ' '  the  Old  Testa- 
ment— whose  authors  certainly  stood  higher  in  this 
respect  than  the  great  masses.  "  In  these  books 
'Hhe  idea  comes  into  the  foreground  more  than  once, 
that  Jahaveh  had  to  uphold  His  own  honour,  and 
therefore  could  not  neglect  to  protect  and  bless  His 
people.  Thus,  in  the  conception  of  the  people, 
Yahweh's  might,  or,  if  you  prefer  to  put  it  so, 
Yahweh's  obligation  to  display  His  might,  must 
often  have  overbalanced  both  His  wTath  against 
Israel's  trespasses  and  the  demands  of  His  right- 
eousness"  (p.  115  f.) 

With  this  popular  view  the  prophets  so  far  agreed, 
although  on  essential  points  they  differed  from  it. 
As  to  the  agreement,  I  quote  Kuenen's  words  (p.  105):^ 
'^  Yahioeli  Israel's  God,  and  Israel  Yahiveh's  people! 
It  surely  needs  no  proof  that  the  canonical  prophets 
endorse  this  fundamental  conception  of  tlie  popular 
religion,  that  not  one  of  them  ever  thinks  of  deny- 
ing it.  The  wiiole  of  their  preaching  takes  this  as 
its  starting-point,  and  leads  back  to  it  as  its  goal. 
On  this  latter  point  I  w^ish  to  place  the  utmost  em- 
phasis. "  He  then  goes  on  to  show  that  though  the 
prophets  looked  forward  to  the  extinction  of  the 
national  life  of  Israel,  and  the  captivity  of  the 
people  into  a  strange  land,  yet  in  their  mind  this 
was  to  be  followed,  sooner  or  later,  by  a  restoration. 
This  is  indeed  to  be  accomi)anied  by  a  transforma- 

1  Soe  also  Kuonen's  ReHgion  of  Israel  (Eng.  trans.),  vol.  1.  p.  219  £f. 


Ethic  Monotheism.  47 

tion  ill  tlic  people  themselves.  ''But  however 
great  the  change  may  be — though  the  wolf  lie  down 
with  the  lamb  and  the  sucking  child  play  by  the 
adder's  hole;  nay,  though  there  be  new  heavens  and 
a  new  earth,  yet  the  relation  between  Jahaveh  and 
Israel  remains  the  same"  (p.  106  f.)  So  that  the 
canonical  prophets  of  the  eighth  and  succeeding  cen- 
turies are  not  only  the  legitimate  successors  of  Elijah 
and  Elisha,  but  it  would  be  a  contradicting  of  these 
prophets  themselves  were  we  to  begin  by  loosening 
the  tie  that  unites  them  to  the  Israelite  nation. 

"  We  are  indeed  doing  the  prophets  ill  service  if  we  conceal 
the  fundamental  thought  of  all  their  preaching.  In  tbis  respect, 
Uiacos  intra  muros  peccatur  et  extra.  Rationalists  have 
branded  as  'particularism,'  and  supranaturalists  have  done 
their  best  to  explain  away  or  evaporate,  what  is  really  nothin,t5 
l^.^s,  th^iW  the  very  essence  of  the  Israelitish  religion,  io  which 
even  the  greatest  prophets  could  not  be  untrue  without  sacrific- 
ing that  religion  itself"  (p.  109  f.) 

And  now,  having  seen  to  what  extent  the  prophets 
agreed  with  the  popular  religious  conceptions  of 
their  time,  we  have  to  consider  in  what  respects, 
according  to  Kuenen,  they  differed  from  them.  For 
there  is  no  doubt  that  in  essential  points  they  stood 
opposed  to  the  religious  opinions  of  their  day,  and 
held  views  that  brought  them  into  sharp  antagonism 
with  not  only  the  common  people,  but  even  the  offi- 
cial heads  of  the  nation.  ''The  prophets,"  says 
Kuenan  (p.  73),  "  while  admitting  the  national  wor- 
ship of  Jahaveh  as  a  fact,  nevertheless  condemn  it 
from  time  to  time  in  the  strongest  terms.  It  an- 
swers in  no  degree  to  their  ideal." 


48  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

"The  images  of  Yahweh  which  adorned  most  of  the  bamoth 
as  well  as  the  temples  at  Dan  and  Beth-el,  imply  that  the  ideas 
men  had  of  Him  were  crude  and  material  in  the  extreme.  Of 
the  religious  solemnities  we  know  little,  but  enough  to  assert 
with  confidence  that  they  embodied  anything  but  spiritual  con- 
ceptions. Wanton  licence  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  terror- 
stricken  attempt  to  propitiate  the  deity  with  human  sacrifices 
on  the  other,  were  the  two  extremes  into  which  the  worshippers 
of  Yahweh  appear  by  no  means  exceptionally  to  have  fallen. 
No  one  will  undertake  to  defend  all  this,  especially  as  at  that 
very  time  there  was  already  another  and  a  higher  standard  vo 
ancient  Israel  opposed  to  the  lower,  and  judging  it"  (p.  75  f.) 

What  then  was  this  ^^ ideal,"  this  ^'higher  stand- 
ard,"  in  ancient  Israel  which  the  prophets  had  got 
hold  of  ?  The  true  prophet,  we  are  told  (p.  112), 
was,  as  Jeremiah  characterises  him  (Jer.  xxviii.  8, 
9),  a  prophet  of  evil.  And  why?  Because  he  was 
< '  the  preacher  of  repentance,  the  representative  oi 
Yahweh's  strict  moral  demands  amongst  a  people 
that  but  too  ill  conforms  to  them."  That  is  to  say, 
holiness  is  now  no  longer  one  attribute  among  many 
others,  as  it  was  in  the  popular  conception:  ^^  in  the 
consciousness  of  the  prophets,  the  central  place  was 
taken,  not  by  the  might  but  by  the  holiness  of  Yah- 
weh. Thereby  the  conception  of  God  was  carried 
up  into  another  and  a  higher  sphere  (p.  119)."  And 
''as  soon  as  an  ethical  c/iaracier  [as  distinguished 
from  merely  a  moral  attribute  among  others]  was 
ascribed  to  Yahweh,  lie  must  act  in  accordance 
with  it.  The  Holy  One,  the  Righteous  One,  might 
renounce  His  people,  but  He  could  not  renounce 
Himself"  (p.  115  f.) 

''This  profoundly  ethical  conception  of  Yahweh's 


Ethic  Monotheism.  49 

being,"  Kucnen  proceeds  to  reason  (p.  114),  '^  could 
not  fail  to  bring  the  prophets  into  conflict  with  the 
religious  convictions  of  their  people."  For  whereas 
the  latter  had  emphasised  the  attribute  of  might, 
and  relied  upon  the  fact  that  Yahweh  and  Israel 
were  inseparable,  so  that  He  was  bound  to  help 
them,  even  at  the  expense  of  His  holiness,  the 
prophets  put  it  differently — that,  being  above  all 
things  holy.  He  was  bound  to  assert  His  holiness 
even  at  the  expense  of  His  people.  Thus,  wiien  the 
people,  as  troubles  gathered  on  the  political  horizon, 
thought  they  could  appease  their  God  and  secure  His 
favour  by  more  numerous  and  costly  sacrifices  and 
multiplied  vows  (p.  115),  reckoning  with  certainty 
(Micah  iii.  11)  upon  the  help  of  the  God  who  was  in 
their  midst,  or  when  in  straits  they  cast  about  for 
new  help,  lavishing  even  sacrifices  of  their  ow^n 
children  (p.  122),  the  prophets  denounced  such  con- 
fidence as  vain,  and  saw  in  the  very  troubles  that 
came  upon  the  nation  the  righteous  hand  of  Yahweh 
Himself,  asserting  not  only  His  might,  but  pre-emi- 
nently His  holiness  against  an  ungodly  nation.  Thus 
the  two  modes  of  viewing  political  events  and  nation- 
al experience  w^ere  diametrically  opposed.  The  one, 
the  popular  view,  based  its  faith  on  earthly  prosper- 
ity and  success.  ^^But,"  says  Kuenen  (p.  118  f.), 
"it  lies  in  the  nature  of  the  case  that  a  faith  reared 
upon  such  foundations  was  subject  to  many  shocks, 
and  under  given  circumstances  might  easily  collapse. 
Born  of  tlie  sense  of  national  dignity,  growing  with 
its  growth  and  strengthening  with  its  strength,  it 
must  likewise  suffer  under  the  blows  that  fell  upon 


50  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

it,  must  pine  and  ultimately  die  when,  with  the  in- 
dependence of  the  nation,  national  self-consciousness 
disappeared."  The  other,  the  prophetic  view,  mak- 
ing Yahweh's  holiness  His  central  attribute,  and  as- 
cribing to  Him  an  etJiical  character,  was  not  depend- 
ent on  the  fluctuations  of  political  events.  ^' Wlien 
others,"  says  Wellhausen,  ^'saw  only  the  ruin  of 
everything  that  is  holiest,  they  saw  the  triumph  of 
Jehovah  over  delusion  and  error;  "  to  which  Kuenen 
adds  (p.  124):— 

''What  was  tlms  revealed  to  their  spirit  was  no  less  than  the 
august  idea  of  the  moral  government  of  the  world — crude  as 
yet,  and  with  manifold  admixture  of  error,  but  pure  in  princi- 
ple. The  prophets  had  no  conception  of  the  mutual  connection 
of  the  powers  and  operations  of  nature.  They  never  dreamed  of 
the  possibility  of  carrying  them  back  to  a  single  cause  or  de- 
ducing them  from  it.  But  what  they  did  see,  on  the  field  within 
their  view,  was  the  realisation  of  a  single  plan — everything,  not 
only  the  tumult  of  the  peoples,  but  all  nature  likewise,  subser- 
vient to  the  working  out  of  one  great  purpose.  The  name 
"ethical  monotheism"  describes  better  than  any  other  the 
characteristics  of  their  point  of  view,  for  it  not  only  expresses 
the  character  of  the  one  God  whom  they  worshipped,  but  also 
indicates  the  fountain  whence  their  faith  in  Him  welled  up." 

Thus  then,  though  the  prophets  were  regarded  by 
their  contemporaries  as  speaking  nothing  less  than 
])lasphemy  (p.  117)  when  they  declared  that  Jerusa- 
lem should  be  destroyed  and  its  people  carried  into 
captivity,  and  though  in  effect  they  were  the  de- 
stroyers of  the  old  national  religion,  yet  they  were  led 
by  the  contemplation  of  political  events,  and  by  the 
working  out  of  their  own  ethical  conceptions,  to  lay 
the  foundations  of  a  religion  of  world-wide  applica- 


Ktkic  Monotheism.  51 

tion  and  signiiicauce.  They  still  held  to  the  in- 
separability of  Jahaveh  and  Israel;  but  in  their 
glowing  descriptions  of  the  blessings  of  the  coming 
age,  they  represented  Israel  as  no  longer  the  special 
object  of  God's  care  and  recipient  of  His  favours, 
but  as  the  organ  and  instrument  of  blessings  to  the 
whole  world.  Thus  anticipations  wdiich,  in-  th3 
popular  conception,  were  limited,  became  trans- 
formed. ^^Many  of  the  descriptions  of  Israel's 
restoration,  and  of  the  role  which  the  heathen  will 
take  therein,  have  none  but  literary  and  a^sthetid 
claims  on  our  admiration"  (p.  126);  whereas,  on 
the  other  hand,  it  lay  in  the  nature  of  the  case  that 
ethical  monotheism,  even  in  the  period  of  its  genesis, 
must  give  a  fresh  turn  to  expectations  with  regard 
to  Yah  well  and  the  peoples.  In  its  full  develop- 
ment, of  course,  this  idea  of  universalism  took  its 
highest  flight  of  all,  as  is  seen  most  conspicuously 
in  the  exalted  ideas  and  comprehensive  views  of  the 
prophets  which  culminate  in  the  glowing  anticipa- 
tions of  the  second  Isaiah  (p.  128). 

There  is  much  truth  and  much  suggestiveness  in 
what  Kuenen  here  puts  forward.  What  he  says 
throws  much  light  both  on  the  relation  of  the 
prophets  to  the  ^^  popular  religion,"  and  also  on  the 
gradual  progress  in  the  conceptions  of  the  prophets 
themselves.  In  speaking  of  the  ' '  popular  religion, " 
we  must,  with  Kuenen,  admit  that  ''all  sincere  re- 
ligion is  true  religion,  and  must  secure  its  beneficent 
result;"  that  "not  in  vain  did  men  thank  Yahweh 
for  the  blessing  of  harvest,  perform  their  work  with 
eyes  fixed  upon  Him,  trust  in  His  help  under  afilic- 


S2  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

tions,  and  turn  to  Him  for  succour  in  times  of  peril  " 
(p.  76).  And  in  regard  to  the  prophetic  religion, 
we  frankly  admit  that  the  course  of  political  events 
taught  the  prophets  much,  and  that  through  out- 
ward events  and  the  germination  of  the  inner  con- 
ception which  they  entertained,  they  reached  purer 
and  .more  comprehensive  views  as  time  went  on. 
But  all  this  does  not  reach  the  point  we  wish  to 
attain.  What  we  wish  to  know  is  the  best  and 
highest  that  any  in  the  nation  had  reached  at  the 
earliest  times  at  which  we  can  catch  a  view  of  the 
Jahaveh  religion,  and  how  much  of  that  survived  as 
a  national  inheritance.  We  wish  to  know  whether 
the  popular  religion  and  the  prophetic  had  not  a 
common  starting-point,  one  source  from  which  they 
sprang  and  then  separated;  we  want  to  know 
whether  this  prophetic  ideal  is  not  derived  from  the 
pre-prophetic  times;  and  if  it  is  not,  we  wish  a 
definite  explanation  of  its  origin  and  its  develop- 
ment out  of  the  lower  conceptions  to  which  it  stood 
opposed.  And  this  I  think  Kuenen  with  all  his 
ingenuity  has  not  furnished. 

1.  In  the  first  place,  when  Kuenen  sets  down  as 
the  very  essence  of  the  Israelitish  religion  the  fun- 
damental article  on  which  people  and  prophets 
agreed,  Yahweh  Israel's  God,  and  Israel  Yahweh's 
people,  he  only  states  in  his  own  way  what  the 
Biblical  writers  one  and  all  insist  on,  and  what  the 
Hebrew  historians  represent  in  various  fashions  as 
an  election  or  choice  of  Israel  by  Jahaveh,  or  a 
covenant  relation  between  the  two.  It  is  but  just 
to  Kuenen  to  draw  attention   to   the  fact  that  he 


Ethic  lloiiotheism.  53 

ascribes  to  Moses  this  amount  at  least  of  influence 
on  Israel,  in  saying  that  'Hhe  consciousness  that  a 
peculiar  and  intimate  relation  existed  between  the 
God  in  whose  name  Moses  came  forward  and  the 
tribes  of  Israel,  never  died  out."  He  would  not 
call  this  a  covenant  in  the  Biblical  sense/  and  he 
insists  that  the  conviction  went  no  further  than  this 
brief  acknowledgment,  since  Moses  failed  in  im- 
pressing on  the  people  his  own  ideas  of  God's  moral 
nature.  ''In  one  word,"  he  says,  ''whatever  dis- 
tinguished Moses  from  his  nation  remained  his  per- 
sonal possession  and  that  of  a  few  kindred  spirits. 
.  .  .  Under  Moses'  influence  Israel  took  a  step 
forward,  but  it  was  only  one  step."  ^  In  view,  how- 
ever, of  Kuenen's  clear  recognition  of  the  one  funda- 
mental piece  of  common  ground  occupied  by  prophets 
and  people,  we  are  entitled  to  ask  him  what  was 
tlie  common  conviction  from  which  both  started, 
seeing  that  both  in  their  respective  modes  held  so 
tenaciously  to  it.  There  must  have  been  some 
objective  fact  in  the  history  that  gave  a  start  to  this 
common  conception,  or  some  point  of  time  at  which 
this  relationship  was  pressed  home  on  the  con- 
sciousness of  the  nation,  to  give  it  this  firm,  incon- 
trovertible position  with  people  and  prophet  alike. 
And  if  the  conception  is  synchronous  with  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Jahaveh  religion — if,  that  is  to  say,  as 

1  Smend  (Moses  apud  Prophetas,  p.  19)  says  distinctly,  "  That  a  cove- 
nant was  once  on  Mount  Sinai  concluded  by  Moses,  is  affirmed  from  of 
old  by  the  most  certain  and  unanimous  tradition."  WelUiausen,  how- 
ever, perceiving  tliat  tlie  admission  of  a  covenant  entered  into  under 
definite  historical  conditions  would  shatter  his  system,  says  that  the 
word  for  a  covenant  between  Jehovah  and  His  people  is  not  to  be  found 
in  the  older  prophets  (Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  417  f.)  See  Note  XXII.  Cf. 
below,  p.  838. 

2  Relig.  of  Israel,  vol.  1.  p.  294. 


54  •   Early  Relirjlon  of  Israel. 

Stadc  lias  concluded,  from  the  moment  that  Jahaveh 
was  accepted  as  the  God  of  Israel,  the  impression 
that  He  and  none  but  He  was  to  be  their  god — 
then  we  go  back  to  the  time  of  Moses  for  the  com- 
mon fountain  of  this  conviction.  That  is  to  say,  at 
a  historical  time  and  under  some  historical  condi- 
tions, the  whole  nation  became  possessed  of  the 
idea  that  Jahaveh  and  His  people  were  inseparably 
joined  to  one  another.  And  tlien  the  question 
arises.  What  were  those  historical  conditions?  and 
which  of  the  two  shall  we  take  as  the  better  inter- 
preters of  what  that  relation  was — the  mass  of  the 
unthinking  and  careless  people,  or  the  elite  of  the 
nation's  religious  men?  Surely  an  idea  held  so 
tenaciously  by  all  classes  in  common  must  rest  upon 
something  more  definite  and  positive  than  tiie  mere 
choice  by  a  nation,  or  by  their  leader  for  tiiem,  of 
some  '^Thunderer."  Kuenen  himself  is  obliged  to 
admit  that,  even  in  the  popular  conception,  the 
idea  of  holiness  was  present  from  the  very  first, 
though  not  as  a  central  attribute.  If,  then,  the 
conception  of  holiness  was  there  from  the  first,  are 
not  the  prophets  more  likely  than  the  common 
people  to  have  preserved,  to  have  inherited  from 
the  best  of  their  predecessors,  from  their  spiritual 
teachers,  the  j^lace  of  that  attribute  in  Jahaveh's 
character?  The  attribute  of  might  never  disap- 
peared from  the  conception  which  the  prophets  had, 
nor  can  a  time  be  pointed  to  when  the  attribute  of 
might  existed  apart  from  that  of  holiness.  Since 
Kuenen  and  his  school  feel  themselves  constrained 
to  postulate  a  moral  attribute  from  the  very  first,  it 


Etliic  Monotheism.  65 

is  much  more  reasonable  to  believe  that  the  thinkin 


& 


and  more  religious  part  of  the  nation  would  assign 
to  the  moral  a  higher  and  more  central  place  than 
to  the  physical.  In  brief,  the  character  of  Jahaveh 
Avas  moral  in  its  initial  conception. 

2.  In  the  second  place,  I  think  his  reasoning  is 
quite  insufficient  to  show  that  mere  political  events 
produced  either  the  popular  or  the  prophetic  con- 
ceptions. No  doubt  these  nourished  the  one  idea  or 
the  other,  or  stimulated  it  to  greater  developments; 
but  something  deeper,  in  the  one  case  and  the  other, 
must  be  assumed,  before  we  can  understand  either 
set  of  phenomena.  The  popular  idea,  he  says,  was 
stimulated  and  supported  by  political  events,  so  that 
David's  wars  and  Solomon's  magnificence  reflected  a 
glory  upon  the  national  God  in  the  popular  estima- 
tion;^ and  that  is  no  doubt  true  in  a  sense.  But  it 
is  not  so  easy  to  follow  him  when  he  goes  on  to  say 
that  the  popular  conception,  born  of  the  sense  of 
national  dignity,  was  bound  to  suffer  under  the  blows 
that  fell  upon  it,  and  ultimately  to  die,  when,  with 
the  independence  of  the  nation,  national  self-con- 
sciousness disappeared  (p.  119).  We  are  con- 
fronted by  historical  facts  that  are  irreconcilable 
with  this  sweeping  assertion.  If  the  popular  con- 
ception was  ^'born  of  the  sense  of  national  dignity," 
and  had  no  firmer  foundation,  it  would  have  disap- 
peared long  before  the  time  of  the  Assyrian  invasions. 
There  were  times  in  the  nation's  history  when  the 
national  fortunes  were  at  the  very  lowest  point,  such 

>  National  Religions,  p.   118.      Compare  also  Wellhausen,   Hist,  of 
Israel,  p.  20. 


66  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

as  the  times  succeeding  Joshua,  and  the  period  im- 
mediately preceding  tlie  appearance  of  Samuel.  If 
outward  reverse  had  been  able  to  break  up  the  feel- 
ing of  national  consciousness,  it  was  at  such  times 
that  the  thing  would  have  happened.  But  it  did 
not;  and  in  fact  it  is  just  at  times  of  deepest 
depression  that  the  religious  life  of  Israel  makes 
new  departures.  Wellhausen,  e.g.^  places  the  rise 
of  Nabiism  in  the  time  when  Israel  was  held  down 
hardest  by  the  Philistines.  On  Kuenen's  own  prin- 
ciples, therefore,  we  are  bound  to  assume  that  (since 
a  faith  born  of  mere  national  dignity  cannot  stand 
such  shocks)  the  popular  faith  had  something  else  to 
sustain  it.  The  popular  faith  must  at  these  earlier 
times  have  had  a  confidence  resting  on  something 
else  than  a  mere  belief  in  the  arbitrary  might 
of  Jahaveh.  We  conclude,  therefore,  that  what 
Kuenen  calls  the  prophetic  belief  must  have  been  in 
existence  from  such  an  early  period — was  indeed 
pre-prophetic;  that  in  fact  pre-prophetic  and  pro- 
phetic are  identical,  both  resting  on  some  histori- 
cal experience. 

Even  more  inadequate,  in  my  opinion,  is  his  at- 
tempt to  prove  that  the  prophetic  belief  was  brought 
about  l)j  political  events.  Kuenen  seems  to  be  so 
well  satisfied  witli  Wellhausen's  statement  of  the  case 
here,'  that  he  contents  himself  with  repeating  his 
words  almost  verbatim.    The  passage  is  as  follows: — 

"Lentil  \\w  time  of  Amos  there  had  subsisted  in  Palestine 
and  Syria  a  number  of  i)etty  kingdoms  and  nationalities,  which 


1  WeHhauwen.  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  472.  Kuenen.  National  Religions,  pp. 
120-125. 


EtJiic  Monotheism.  5t 

had  their  friendships  and  enmities  with  one  another,  but  paid  no 
heed  to  anything  outside  their  own  immediate  environment,  and 
revolved,  each  in  its  own  axis,  careless  of  the  outside  world,  ^ 
until  suddenly  the  Assyrians  burst  in  upon  them.  They  com- 
menced the  work  which  was  carried  on  by  the  Babylonians,  Per- 
sians, and  Greeks,  and  completed  by  the  Romans.  They  intro- 
duced a  new  factor,  the  conception  of  the  world — the  world,  of 
course,  in  the  historical  sense  of  that  expression.  In  presence  of 
that  conception,  the  petty  nationalities  lost  their  centre  of  grav- 
ity, brute  force  dispelled  their  illusions,  they  flung  their  gods  to 
the  moles  and  to  the  bats  (Isa.  ii.)  The  prophets  of  Israel  alone 
did  not  allow  themselves  to  be  taken  by  surprise  by  what  had 
occurred,  or  to  be  plunged  in  despair;  they  solved  by  anticipa- 
tion the  grim  problem  which  history  set  before  them.  They  ab- 
sorbed into  their  religion  that  conception  of  the  world  which 
was  destroying  the  religions  of  the  nations,  even  before  it  had 
been  fully  grasped  by  the  secular  consciousness.  Where  others 
saw  only  the  ruin  of  everything  that  is  holiest,  they  saw  the  tri- 
umi)h  of  Jehovah  over  delusion  and  error." 

I  humbly  think  that  the  language  here  used  is 
badly  chosen  at  the  very  point  where  we  want  the 
utmost  clearness.  If  the  words  are  to  be  taken  liter- 
ally, it  is  little  wonder  that  the  nationalities  lost 
their  centre  of  gravity,  or  even  their  gravity  itself, 
over  the  performance  here  ascribed  to  a  '  ^  conception. " 
A  ^^  conception  "  of  the  world  was  introduced  by  the 
Assyrians;  at  its  presence  the  petty  nationalities  lost 
their  centre  of  gravity ;  the  prophets  of  Israel  alone  did 
not  allow  themselves  to  be  taken  by  surprise;  they 
'  ^  absorbed  "  into  their  religion  that  conception,  '■  ^  even 
before  it  had  been  fully  grasped  by  the  secular  con- 
sciousness,"— and  the  thing  was  done.  Let  us,  how- 
ever, try  to  get  behind  the  phrases  and  understand 
the  thing  that  is  supposed  to  have  actually  happened. 

1  See  Note  XXIII. 


'68  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

The  Assyrians  appeared  upon  the  narrow  stage  on 
which  Israel  and  other  little  nationalities  moved. 
With  their  appearance  arose  the  conception  of  the 
world  in  the  usual  historical  sense — i.e.,  I  suppose 
the  petty  nationalities  came  to  understand  that  there 
was  a  world  much  larger  than  their  own  circum- 
scribed territory,  and  agencies  at  work  superior  to 
those  with  which  they  were  familiar.  If  the  most  of 
the  petty  nations  threw  their  idols  to  the  moles  and 
to  the  bats,  it  would  be  because  they  were  convinced 
that  these,  their  own  gods,  were  of  no  avail  to  re- 
sist the  stronger  power,  which,  under  the  patronage 
of  foreign  gods,  was  trampling  down  petty  nation- 
alities like  their  own.  The  ''conception,"  therefore, 
which  is  not  a  thing  floating  in  the  air,  but  a  pro- 
duct of  reflection,  arose  in  the  minds  of  Israel's  neigh- 
bours as  well  as  in  the  minds  of  the  prophets. 
This  is  all  plain  enough;  but  when  Ave  come  to  the 
yital  point,  Why  did  the  prophets  of  Israel  take  a 
different  view?  we  have  no  explanation  of  the  fact. 
We  are  simply  told  they  ''absorbed  the  conception 
into  their  own  religion,  even  before  it  had  been  fully 
grasped  by  the  secular  consciousness."  That  is  to 
say,  before  even  the  secular  consciousness  had  fully 
grasped  the  fact  that  there  were  greater  powers  out- 
side their  narrow  confines  than  their  local  national 
gods,  the  prophets  at  once  started  to  declare  tliat  it 
was  tlieir  own  national  God  tluit  Avas  controlling 
these  forces — at  once  they  leaped  from  the  idea  of  a 
local  national  deity  to  that  of  a  deity  controlling 
tlie  world;  or,  at  all  events,  they  saw  a  divine  plan, 
a  Providence  in  all  tliese  things,  which  so  staggered 


Ethic  3Ionotliei8m.  69 

others.  Then,  I  suppose,  it  was  that  the  shifting 
took  place  in  the  conception  of  the  attributes  of 
Jaliaveh,  and  He  came  to  be  conceived  as  One  with 
not  only  moral  attributes,  but  with  ethical  character. 
I  cannot  see  that  the  thing  is  made  any  clearer,  or " 
that  the  development  is  made  out.  What  we  want 
to  know  is.  What  enabled  the  prophets  alone  to  read 
the  signs  of  the  times  as  they  did?  Their  teaching, 
in  face  of  the  events,  is  a  clear  proof  that  from  the 
first  utterance  of  it  they  had  a  higher  idea  of  their 
God  to  start  with.  The  solution  of  the  political 
problem  was  indeed  ready  before  the  problem  pre- 
sented itself,  just  because  the  idea  of  a  God  whose 
character  was  ethical  was  a  much  older  idea.  The 
earliest  writing  prophets  knew  of  a  God  different 
from  the  gods  of  the  nations  around  them;  and  they 
them.selves  speak  of  such  a  God  as  revealing  Himself 
to  prophets  before  them.  Even  the  writer  or  writ- 
ers of  the  patriarchal  stories,  and  the  w^riter  of  the 
accounts  of  Elijah,  at  a  time  when  there  was  no 
threatening  of  a  collapse  of  the  State  from  foreign 
invasion,  have  pure  ethical  conceptions  of  Jahaveh, 
and  regard  Him  as  controlling  the  destinies  of  the 
w^orld.  The  conception  of  Jahaveh  as  a  Ruler  of  the 
world  is  much  older  than  the  time  in  which  Kuenen 
and  his  school  ^ould  place  it;  and  it  is  in  vain  that 
we  ask  the  outward  events  of  the  history  to  give  an 
explanation  of  that  religious  consciousness  which, 
from  the  earliest  times,  underlies  all  these  events. 

3.  But  in  the  third  place,  let  us  leave  abstract  in- 
quiries into  what  must  have  happened,  and  this  sub- 
tle following  of  the  movement  of  a  conception:  let  us 


60  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

come  to  actual  facts.  If  it  be  true  that  the  appear- 
ance of  the  Assyrians  gave  the  first  impulse  to  this 
wider  view,  the  view  is  so  far  removed  from  what  is 
called  the  pre-prophetic  conception  that  avc  ought  to 
see  it  growing  under  our  eyes.  At  the  Assyrian 
period,  we  have  the  contemporary  writings  of  Amos 
and  Hosea;  and  from  them  onwards,  we  have  the 
writings  of  other  prophets  who  lived  through  the 
trying  times  of  the  Assyrian  invasions,  and  down  to 
the  Babylonian  captivity.  Amos  speaks  only  in  the 
vaguest  terms  of  the  great  Assyrian  power;  Isaiah 
saw  it  in  the  land;  Jeremiah  witnessed  the  final  col- 
lapse of  Israelite  independence.  We  ought  to  be 
able  to  trace  the  gradual  expansion  of  the  prophetic 
view,  from  its  first  stage  to  its  last.  Xow  what  do 
we  find?  We  find  indeed  an  advance  from  Amos  to 
Jeremiah  as  to  the  conditions  on  which  the  relation 
of  Jahaveh  to  Israel  rests,  and  in  regard  to  the  rela- 
tion of  the  Jahaveh  religion  to  the  outside  worlc; 
but  within  the  range  of  written  prophecy  we  do  not 
find  the  development  of  the  idea  of  Jahaveh  Himself 
In  regard  to  the  conception  that  He  controls  tlie 
whole  world,  there  is  no  diflcrence  in  the  teacliing 
of  Amos  and  Jeremiah.  I  know  that  Wellhausen 
and  Stade  would  reject  all  passages  in  Amos  ^  which 
express  such  high  views  of  Jahaveh's  character,  on 
the  ground  that  they  disturb  the  connection.  Rob- 
ertson Smith, ^  though  he  does  not  reject  them,  says 
mildly  that  they  are  not  necessary  for  the  under- 
standing of  the  context;  and  he  refers,  ap])nrently 

1  Such  passages  as  Amos  Iv.  13,  v,  8  ff..  Ix.  1-7.    Seo  chup.  vi.  p.  146. 
s  Prophets  of  Israel,  p.  398  f. 


Ethic  3Ionothei8m.  01 

with  favour,  to  WcUhauscn's  explanation  of  tlieir 
presence  in  the  text — that  tliey  are  lyrical  inter- 
mezzl,  like  those  that  are  found  so  frequently  in  tlie 
Deutero-Isaiali.  Lyrical  intermezzi  forsooth!  Any 
one  witli  the  least  sympathy  witli  the  writers  will 
recognise  in  them  the  outpourings  of  hearts  that 
were  full  of  the  noblest  conceptions  of  the  God  whom 
they  celebrate,  and  will  perceive  tliat  they  come  in 
most  fitly  to  emphasise  the  context. 

On  this  point  Kuenen  has  to  defend  himself,  and 
he  explains  at  length^  his  position  as  compared  with 
that  of  Baudissin  and  contrasted  with  that  of  H. 
Schultz.  His  explanation  amounts  to  this,  that,  if 
tlie  prophets  of  the  eighth  century  use  expressions 
concerning  Jahaveh's  supremacy  over  the  heathen 
world  as  well  as  Israel,  and  concerning  the  gods  of 
the  heathen,  which  practically  amount  to  a  denial  of 
the  existence  of  tlie  latter,  this  shows  that  they 
belong  to  a  period  of  transition  or  o^  nascent  mono- 
theism. Traces  of  this  are  still  to  be  found  distinct- 
ly in  Deuteronomy  itself.^  This  nascent  monotheism 
in  the  prophets  of  the  eighth  century  Kuenen  de- 
scribes as  '^  a  repeated  overstepping  of  the  line  be- 
tween monolatry  and  the  recognition  of  one  only 
God."  He  says:  '^  I  recognise  monotheism  r/e/^cto 
in  these  strong  expressions  of  the  prophets,  and  only 
deny  that  they  had  acquired  it  as  a  pennanont  pos- 
session. Now  and  then  they  rise  to  the  recognition 
of  the  sole  existence  of  Jahaveh,  and  the  denial  of 
'niie  other  gods";   ''  but  generally  they  do  not  get 

1  National  Religions,  note  vU.  p.  317  ff. 

2  Theol.  Review,  1874,  pp.  347-351. 


62  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

beyond  the  monolatry  in  which  they,  or  at  any  rate 
the  earlier  ones  among  them,  had  been  brouglit  up." 
He  maintains,  however,  in  opposition  to  Schultz, 
that  ''the  still  older  monotheism  of  the  period  be- 
fore the  prophets  has  no  existence." 

Now,  if  we  examine  this  so-called  nascent  mono- 
theism, which  is  admitted  to  be  de  facto  monotheism, 
we  find  it  full-grown  at  its  birth.  Amos,  the  earli- 
est writing  prophet,  utters  it  in  clear  tones,  as  a 
familiar  and  admitted  truth,  in  saying  that  Jahaveh 
had  brought  the  Philistines  from  Caphtor  and  the 
Syrians  from  Kir,  as  he  had  brought  Israel  from 
Egypt,  and  in  ever  representing  righteousness  as  the 
basis  of  the  divine  character.  A  being  whose  char- 
acter is  ethical,  and  whose  rule  unerringly  controls 
the  destinies  of  all  nations  alike  (Amos  ix.  7),  is  in- 
finitely more  than  a  national  god,  such  as  heathen 
nations  conceived  their  deities;  and  in  no  case  does 
Amos  give  any  countenance  to  the  so-called  monol- 
atry, as  if  the  monotheism  he  taught  was  held 
loosely  in  his  hands.  But  what  are  we  to  think  of 
Kuenen's  position  that  this  nascent  monotheism  is 
also  still  to  be  found  a  century  after  Amos  in  the 
book  of  Deuteronomy?  It  is  there  de  facto  in  Amos; 
still  a  century  later  it  is  only  nascent;  whereas  in 
Elijah,  a  century  before  Amos,  it  has  no  existence, 
although  in  another  connection  both  are  declared  to 
])c  equally  organs  of  the  Jahaveh  religion.  And  we 
are  to  accept  all  this  on  the  ''  I  recognise  '^  and  ''  I 
maintain  "  of  Dr.  Kuencn.  In  regard  to  the  ethical 
character  of  Jahaveh,  Amos  and  Ilosea  were  just  as 
bold  and  firm  in  chiding  the  sins  of  their  contempo- 


FAlUc  Monotheism,  63 

raries  as  Isaiah,  wlio  on  tliis  theory  is  supposed  to 
have  attained  a  conception  ot*  holiness  which  was 
only  nascent  in  these  earlier  prophets;  and  the 
prophets  that  follow  Isaiah  are  not  more  emphatic 
in  the  same  strain,  and  yet  they  do  not,  like  Isaiah, 
call  Jahaveh  the  Holy  One  of  Israel.  In  fact,  this 
explanation  of  the  rise  of  pure  monotheism  is  arti- 
ficial in  the  extreme,  and  the  '^ ethic  monotheism" 
is  merely  a  pretentious  phrase.  The  same  truth 
that  Amos  proclaimed  finds  expression  in  the  words 
put  in  the  mouth  of  Abraham  by  the  Jehovistic  nar- 
rator, ^ '  Shall  not  the  Judge  of  all  the  world  do 
right?"  (Gen.  xviii.  25);  it  was  de  facto  held  by 
Elijah  and  the  seven  thousand  wiio  like  him  would 
not  bow  the  knee  to  Baal;  it  was  held  also  by  Sam- 
uel when  he  set  up  the  stone  Ebenezer,  saying, 
Hitherto  Jahaveh  hath  helped  us:  ^  and  these  men 
could  not  have  asserted  it,  one  after  the  other,  so 
emphatically  as  they  did,  in  times  of  deepest  na- 
tional depression,  unless  it  had  been  deeply  im- 
pressed on  the  hearts  of  the  best  of  the  nation 
from  the  early  times  at  which  the  Biblical  writers 
assume  it. 

4.  Lastly,  let  us  come  back  to  Kuenen's  empha- 
sised assertion  that  the  prophets  agreed  with  the 
people  in  the  tenacity  with  which  they  clung  to  the 
belief  that  Jahaveh  and  Israel  were  inseparable. 
The  point  is  not  disputed;  but  surely  such  a  convic- 
tion must  have  been  based  upon  something  definite 
and  positive,  and  it  is  most  reasonable  to  assume 
that  that  something  was  believed  to  be  inherent  in 

1  Ki  >nig,  Hauptprobleme,  p.  44  f. 


64  Earhj  Religion  of  Israel. 

the  nature  of  Jahaveh  Himself  If  the  nation  be- 
lieved that  He  would  never  give  them  up,  however 
far  they  fell  from  Him;  if  the  prophets  believed  that 
He  would  never  give  them  up,  and  even  would  have 
a  special  favour  for  them  when  He  became  the  God 
of  all  the  families  of  mankind, — there  must  have 
been  in  the  minds  of  all  a  belief  of  some  quality 
strong  enough  to  bind  Jahaveh  in  this  inseparable 
manner  to  His  own  people.  Neither  'might,' nor 
holiness  in  its  terrifying  aspect,  will  explain  this. 
Now  such  a  quality  or  character  we  do  find  ascribed 
to  Him  by  the  earliest  prophets,  although  it  is  a 
quality  to  which  I  think  Kuenen  makes  no  reference. 
It  is  an  attribute,  without  taking  account  of  which 
we  can  neither  understand  the  Old  nor  the  New 
Testament.  I  call  it,  without  hesitation,  the  quality 
of  grace.  In  various  ways  the  belief  in  it  comes 
out;  by  various  names  the  shades  of  its  signification 
are  expressed;  but  this  variety  only  shows  how 
central,  to  use  Kuenen's  own  word,  this  attribute 
was  in  the  conception.  And  I  am  not  to  reason 
from  abstract  principles  here,  or  from  the  whole 
tenor  of  Biblical  teaching.  I  take  as  witness  one  of 
the  earliest  of  the  writing  propliets,  who  lived  at 
the  very  time  Kuenen's  supposed  development  should 
have  been  taking  place,  and  it  is  marvellous  to  me 
that  Kuenen  and  other  writers  could  have  passed  by 
a  witness  whose  testimony  is  so  precise.  The  whole 
of  Hosea's  book  turns  upon  that  idea, — God  had 
loved  Israel  in  the  time  of  the  nation's  j^outh;  and 
the  touching  story  (or  figure)  of  the  wayward  wife, 
going  her  own  evil  course,  yet  not  rejected, — just 


FAhic  Monotheism.  65 

because  her  liusl)an(l  had  loved  her  at  first, — and 
finally  brought  back,  and  hy  the  power  of  love  taught 
to  love  her  husband, — all  this  is  applied  for  us  by 
the  prophet  himself  to  the  history  of  Israel/  Here 
is  another  attribute  than  either  might  or  holiness — 
and  it  is  here  at  the  very  dawn  of  written  prophecy, 
and  placed  by  the  prophet  at  the  dawn  of  the  na- 
tional history — an  attribute  which  surely  raises  the 
character  of  Jahaveh  to  a  higher  level,  and  casts 
light  upon  the  apparent  contradictions  which  Kuenen 
has  exhibited.  Jahaveh  was,  above  all  things, 
'^faithful."  He  had  done  great  things  for  Israel 
(Amos  ii.  9-11)  in  the  past  out  of  mere  grace,  not 
because  they  had  deserved  it.  The  prophet  Amos 
also,  though  he  dwells  more  on  the  righteousness  of 
Jahaveh,  does  not  leave  out  of  account  the  divine 
love  and  mercy.  These  attributes  are  implied  in  the 
great  things  that  had  been  done  for  the  nation  in  the 
past,  and  emphatically  taught  in  the  7th  chapter  in 
the  repeated  visions  of  the  prophet,  in  which  the 
Lord  ''  repents  "  of  the  evil  about  to  be  inflicted  on 
His  people:  ^' It  shall  not  be,  saith  Jahaveh."  We 
get  thus,  instead  of  mere  reasonings  as  to  how  con- 
ceptions arise,  positive  historical  facts  as  the  means 
of  producing  the  idea  which  was  held  so  tenaciously 
to  the  last.  If  the  people  perverted  this  doctrine, 
and  sinned  that  grace  might  abound;  if  they  pre- 
sumed that,  because  Jahaveh  could  not  deny  Him- 
self, therefore  they  might  sin  and  repent, — this  is  no 
more  than  thousands  have  done  in  the  times  of  the 

">  This  is  thn  substance,  under  any  interpretation,  of  chapters  i.  to  iil. 
See  also  chapter  xi.  8  ff ,  "  How  shaU  I  give  thee  up,  Ephraim?  " 


66  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

Gospel.  But  their  tenacity  to  the  belief  that  He 
would  not  forsake  them  can  hardly  be  explained 
without  such  a  belief  underlying  it.  Even  their 
redoubled  zeal  in  the  matter  of  vows  and  offerings, 
taken  in  connection  with  this  belief  in  Jahaveh's 
faithfulness,  is  not  Avithout  its  significance, — not  as 
showing  that  they  believed  these  w^ould  turn  the 
faithful  One  from  His  purpose,  but  as  showing  that 
they  recognised  them  as  the  outward  expression  of 
^/ieiV  faithfulness,  or  promise  of  faithfulness,  on  their 
part.  At  all  events,  this  unconquerable  conviction, 
wdiich  the  prophets  held  in  a  purer,  and  the  people 
in  a  more  corrupted  form,  guarantees  the  conclusion 
that  both  alike  recognised  in  the  character  of 
Jahaveh  an  attribute  which  had  a  more  personal 
relation  to  them  than  either  the  attribute  of  might 
or  that  of  holiness,  an  attribute  which  Hosea  simply 
calls  love;  which  will  explain,  on  the  one  side,  His 
forgiveness  of  offences,  and  on  the  other  His  unalter- 
able care  and  regard.  And  therefore  we  are  en- 
titled to  conclude  that  this  fundamental  conception 
of  Jahaveh  underlying  the  views  of  people  and 
prophets  together,  was  substantially  that  embodied 
in  the  declaration  of  His  character,  which  is  by  the 
Biblical  writers  placed  as  far  back  as  the  time  of 
Moses  (Exod.  xxxiv.  6,  7,  R.V.):  'Mahaveh,  Jaha- 
veh, a  God  full  of  compassion  and  gracious,  slow  to 
anger  and  i)lenteous  in  mercy  and  truth;  keeping 
mercy  for  thousands,  forgiving  initpiity  and  trans- 
gression and  sin;  and  that  will  by  no  means  clear 
the  guilty;  visiting  the  iniquity  of  the  fathers  upon 
the  children,  and  ui)on  the  children's  children,  upon 


Ethic  Monotheism.  67 

the  third  and  upon  tlie  fourtli  generation."  It  seems 
to  nie  that  if  Ave  phice  at  the  outset  such  a  concep- 
tion of  Jahaveh,  which  is  two-sided,  and  capable  of 
expansion  in  two  different  lines,  we  can  account  for 
the  development  of  the  popular  idea  equally  with 
that  of  the  prophets  from  one  common  source;  that 
we  can  give  some  explanation  of  the  clearness  with 
whicli  the  very  earliest  of  the  writing  prophets 
represent  the  character  of  the  national  God,  and 
also  the  persistency  with  which  the  people  held  to 
tlieir  view  to  the  last.  We  obtain,  in  a  word, 
development  from  a  definite  starting-point,  whereas 
on  Kuenen's  view  we  neither  find  a  reasonable  meet- 
ing-point for  the  two  div^ergent  tendencies,  nor  can 
follow  the  steps  in  the  development  of  either  the  one 
or  the  other. 

^'  The  principles  which  we  see  operating  from  the 
earliest  times,"  says  Professor  A.  B.  Davidson, 
''  are  the  principles  wielded  by  the  prophets.  They 
are  few  but  comprehensive.  They  form  the  es- 
sence of  the  moral  law — consisting  of  two  principles 
and  a  fact, — namely,  that  Jehovah  was  Israel's 
God  alone;  and  that  His  being  was  ethical,  de- 
manding a  moral  life  among  those  who  served 
Him  as  His  people:  and  these  two  principles 
elevated  into  a  high  emotional  unity  in  the  con- 
sciousness of  redemption  just  experienced."  ^ 

1  Expositor,  third  series,  vol.  v.  p.  43. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

AUTHORITATIVE   INSTITUTIONS — THEIR   EARLY   DATE. 

Connection  of  this  with  the  preceding — Reasons  for  postponing 
consideration  of  forms,  (1)  because  ijractice  is  not  a  sure 
index  of  2^'f'ofession,  arid  (2)  because  external  forms, 
even  ivhen  authorised,  are  not  sufficient  index  of  the 
truth  of  ivhich  they  are  signs — Mode  of  procedure  as 
before — Three  things  to  be  distinguished,  Law,  Codifi- 
cation of  Law,  Writing  of  Law-books,  on  all  of  which  the 
Biblical  theory  allows  a  latitude  of  view — Points  at  which 
the  Biblical  and  the  modei-n  view  are  at  variance — The 
conclusions  of  the  modern  theory,  (1)  Law  not  of  Mosaic 
origin,  (2)  Codes  so  inconsistent  that  they  must  be  of  dif- 
ferent dates — Position  similar  to  that  before  assumed — 
Presum-ption  that  Moses  gave  definite  laws — The  Covenant, 
how  signalised — Proofs  from  prophetical  writers;  from 
Psalms;  from  admitted  historical  books — Conclusion  that 
a  Norm  or  Law,  outside  of  prophets  and  superior  to 
them,  was  acknowledged — Wfiat  was  it? 

Up  to  this  point  the  object  of  our  inquiry  has  been 
to  determine,  as  far  as  possible,  wluit  the  religion 
of  Israel  was,  in  its  essential  and  internal  elements, 
at  the  earliest  period  to  which  we  have  access.  We 
have  examined  the  testimony  given  by  the  earliest 
admitted  written  sources  to  the  nature  of  the 
religion  at  the  date  to  which  they  belong,  and  have 
endeavoured  to  estimate  the  value  of  this  class  of 


Authoritative  Institutions — their  Early  Date.   69 

witnesses  lor  the  determination  of  the  religion  of  an 
antecedent  and  early  time.  Without  relying  on  dis- 
puted books,  we  have  found  that  those  which  are 
admitted  conlirm  in  many  ways  the  statements  of 
those  which  arc  not  primarily  taken  into  account. 
The  earliest  writing  prophets,  though  not  appealing 
to  the  authority  of  books,  appeal  to  admitted  and 
undeniable  facts  which  are  asserted  in  these  books; 
and  our  conclusion  has  been,  that  whereas  the 
modern  theory  is  obliged  to  overstrain  those  ad- 
mitted facts  of  history  and  experience  which  have  a 
show  of  being  in  its  favour,  and  to  underrate  those 
which  seem  to  oppose  it,  the  Biblical  theory  is  con- 
firmed in  the  main,  and  that  the  religion  of  Israel 
had,  at  a  much  earlier  stage  than  the  modern  criti- 
cal writers  admit,  the  purer  and  more  ethical 
character  which  they  Avould  relegate  to  a  later  time. 
We  come  now  to  consider  whether  in  outward 
form  also  and  positive  institutions  the  religion  of 
Israel  had  not,  before  the  time  of  the  earliest  writ- 
ing prophets,  or  l^efore  the  time  at  which  modern 
critical  writers  place  such  an  organisation,  a  more 
defined  shape  and  authoritative  arrangement  than 
the  modern  historians  allow.  The  two  things  are 
closely  connected.  Religious  belief  and  practice 
always  act  and  react  upon  one  another.  According 
to  the  Biblical  view,  as  there  was  an  early  revela- 
tion of  spiritual  truth,  so  there  was  an  early  institu- 
tion of  law  and  religious  observance.  On  the 
modern  view  also  the  two  things  are  intimately 
related.      Wellhausen   says,^    '^  All    writers  of  the 

1  Hiat.  of  Israel,  p.  27. 


10  Early  Relifjlon  of  Israel. 

Chaldaean  period  associate  monotheism  in  the  closest 
way  with  unit}'  of  worship;  "  and  it  is  a  fundamental 
clement  of  his  theory  that  the  process  of  centralisa- 
tion and  spiritualisation  Avliich  marks  the  develop- 
ment of  the  law  and  worship  went  on  under 
prophetic  influence  and  pari  ptcissu  with  the  de- 
velopment of  proi)hetic  thought  and  teaching.' 

It  might  seem  at  first  sight  that  it  would  have 
been  more  proper  to  begin  with  outward  observ- 
ances, which  arc  so  obvious  and  give  so  tangible  a 
representation  of  a  people's  religious  belief;  and 
then  to  reason  from  them  to  the  essential  character 
of  the  religion.  There  are,  however,  these  two 
considerations  to  be  taken  into  account.  (1)  In 
the  first  place,  outward  ol)servance  is  not  always, 
nor  indeed  generally,  a  faithful  indication  of  re- 
ligious profession;  and  when  we  are  in  search,  as 
we  are  in  this  case,  of  a  religion  which  claims  to 
have  been  positively  given  with  definite  fundamen- 
tal principles  as  Avell  as  formal  institutions,  it 
would  be  unfair  to  rest  either  upon  the  moral 
practice  or  the  religious  usages  of  a  people  making 
profession  of  such  a  religion.  Forms  may  be  per- 
verted, obscured,  or  corrupted,  and  the  life  of 
the  people  is  pretty  certain  to  hill  short  of 
their  faith.  We  might,  for  example,  from  the  mere 
observance  of  facts  and  phenomena  gather  what 
was  the  ''state  of  religion,"  as  we  use  the  phrase, 
in  any  given  age  of  the  Christian  Church,  but  we 
would  not  be  safe,  from  the  mere  contemplation  of 
any  age,  in  drawing  a  conclusion  as  to  the  essential 

1  Hist,  of  Israel ;  cf.  p.  26  with  47,  81,  103. 


Authoritative  Institutions — tJiei}-  Early  Date.   71 

character  of  Christianity.  To  argue  from  custom  or 
observance  in  religion  to  the  requirements  and 
essence  of  religion  would,  in  the  case  before  us,  be 
begging  the  question,  which  is  virtually  as  to 
whether  or  not  there  was  an  ideal  or  positive  re- 
ligion to  start  with.  By  examining,  as  we  have 
done,  first  of  all  the  writings  of  the  prophets,  we 
gain  some  guiding  light  on  this  the  fundamental 
point.  And  (2)  in  the  second  place,  outward  rites 
and  ceremonies,  in  a  special  manner,  do  not  furnish 
a  sufficient  indication  of  the  truth  of  which  they 
are  symbols  or  concomitants.  In  such  rites  there 
has  often  been  a  carrying  over  and  adaptation  of 
old  customary  observances,  which  are  in  this  trans- 
ference invested  with  a  new  meaning.  Many  of  the 
observances  of  Christendom  are  of  this  description; 
even  the  sacraments  of  the  New  Testament  rest,  as 
symbolic  ordinances,  upon  earlier  usages,  although 
in  the  Gospel  they  are  invested  with  new  meaning. 
So  also  it  is  well  known  that  some  of  the  observ- 
ances that  are  now  characteristic  of  Islam  were 
adopted  and  adapted  from  pre-existing  Aral^ian 
usages.  In  any  of  these  cases,  to  argue  from  the 
forms,  without  knowing  what  they  were  meant  to 
signify,  would  be  manifestly  and  grossly  unfair.  It 
would  be  similar  to  the  false  reasoning,  which  we  liave 
had  occasion  to  notice  already,  from  the  primary  or 
etymological  signification  of  a  word,  without  taking 
note  of  the  sense  in  which,  at  a  given  time  and  in  a 
particular  context,  it  is  employed.  And  it  is 
necessary  now  to  enter  this  caveat,  because,  as  we 
shall  have  occasion  to  notice,  this  mode  of  reason- 


72  Enrly  Religion  of  Israel. 

ing  is  not  a  little  relied  on  in  tlio  treatment  of  this 
su1)ject.  Certain  observances  of  the  Israelite  re- 
ligion, which  are  represented  by  the  Biblical  writers 
as  comineniorative  or  symbolical  of  national  religious 
facts,  have  the  outward  forms  of  old  observances  or 
popular  customs,  and  several  of  them  are  connected 
with  the  cycle  of  the  natural  year;  and  the  conclu- 
sion is  drawn,  that  down  to  a  very  recent  period  the 
sacred  festivals  signified  nothing  more  than  the  bare 
outward  form  expressed.  Hence  the  necessity  of 
determining,  first  of  all,  as  we  have  endeavoured  to 
do,  whether  in  religious  conceptions  and  beliefs 
Israel  had  not  at  a  much  earlier  period  passed 
beyond  the  elements  of  a  mere  naturalistic  faith. 
Hence  also  the  necessity  of  caution  in  reasoning 
from  the  mere  outward  concomitants  and  expres- 
sions of  religion  to  the  essence  of  the  thing  signified. 
No  doubt  a  certain  prepossession,  on  the  one  side 
or  the  other,  arising  out  of  the  preceding  inquiry, 
attends  us  as  we  enter  on  tliis  part  of  the  subject.  If 
we  admit  tlic  conclusion  that  the  religion  of  Israel 
was  gradually  evolved  or  developed  from  an  animis- 
tic stage,  we  shall  scarcely  expect  to  find  in  the  pre- 
prophetic  period  institutions  of  a  high  moral  signifi- 
cance; but  if,  on  the  contrary,  we  are  satisfied  that 
the  religion  was  in  its  earlier  and  fundamental  stage 
of  a  more  ethical  and  exalted  character,  it  Avill  not 
surprise  us  to  find,  in  the  period  referred  to,  a  set  of 
religious  institutions  in  keeping  with  and  expressing 
the  higher  class  of  conceptions.  We  shall,  however, 
endeavour  to  consider  this  part  of  tlie  subject  inde- 
pendently of  any  conclusions  already  reached;  and 


Authoritative  Institutions — their  Early  Date.   73 

in  doing  so,  to  follow  the  same  method  of  procedure 
as  before.  From  the  known  and  admitted  we  shall 
seek  to  make  our  way  to  the  unknown  or  disputed; 
endeavouring  from  clear  indications  of  the  records 
which  are  unquestioned  to  make  out  the  state  of 
religious  ordinances  of  their  time,  and  the  testimony 
which  they  may  give  to  a  greater  antiquity.  And 
here  again  what  is  primarily  to  be  determined  is, 
not  the  date  of  certain  books  in  wiuch  the  formal 
statement  and  prescription  of  outward  observances 
are  contained,  but  the  existence  of  the  institutions, 
or  the  knowledge  of  the  prescriptions  at  the  time 
and  on  the  part  of  the  writers  whose  dates  are 
known.  If  we  shall  find  that  the  witnesses  who  are 
available  testify  to  the  existence  of  laws  and  ordi- 
nances such  as  arc  found  in  the  documents  whose  date 
is  unknown,  there  is  a  strong  presumption  that  these 
ordinances  are  the  things  we  are  in  search  of;  and 
even  if  the  documents  in  which  they  are  embodied 
should  be  of  late  composition,  they  will  to  us  still  re- 
tain substantially  their  historical  value. 

In  the  inquiry  now  before  us  there  are  three  things 
which  are  easily  distinguishable,  and  which  ought 
t^o  be  kept  distinct  in  our  minds.  These  are,  (a)  the 
origin  of  laws  and  observances,  (b)  the  codification 
of  laws,  or  the  formal  ratification  of  observances, 
and  (c)  the  composition  of  the  books  in  which  we 
find  the  laws  finally  embodied  or  the  ordinances  de- 
scribed. Laws  and  institutions  may  grow  out  of 
custom,  or  they  may  be  matter  of  formal  enactment; 
but  in  either  case  they  may  exist  for  a  longer  or 
shorter  time  without  being  embodied  in  written  pre- 


74  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

scriptions.  Again,  the  writing  down  of  such  pre- 
scriptions may  be  a  gradual  process,  and  result  in 
the  Ibrniation  of  more  than  one  code;  but  even  after 
laws  are  codified  and  institutions  enacted,  all  expe- 
rience proves  that  the}'  may  undergo  modification. 
Finally,  the  writing  of  a  book  or  books,  in  which 
codes  or  collections  of  laws  and  prescriptions  of  ob- 
servances are  strung  upon  a  historical  thread,  may 
quite  conceivably  be  a  work  later  than  the  formation 
of  separate  codes,  and  much  later  than  the  origina- 
tion of  the  laws  or  ordinances. 

A  full  investigation  into  all  these  subjects  would 
take  us  very  far  afield;  but  we  are  kept  within 
limitations  by  the  nature  of  our  present  inquiry, 
and  also  by  the  circumstances  of  the  case.  We  are 
not  called  upon,  for  example,  to  go  into  the  abstract 
question  of  the  origin  of  law  and  institutions,  any 
more  than  in  the  former  part  of  our  inquiry  we  had 
to  investigate  the  origin  of  religion.  The  Biblical 
writers  maintain  that  from  a  certain  historical 
period  onwards — viz.,  from  the  time  of  Moses — 
Israel  had  a  certain  body  of  positive  institutions 
(just  as  they  assert  that  from  Abraham's  time  they 
had  a  pure  faith);  and  that  these  institutions  arg 
embodied  in  certain  law-books  which  are  preserved 
to  us.  Our  inquiry  is  therefore  limited  to  a  certain 
time,  and  concentrated  upon  certain  subjects.  It  is 
also  important  to  observe  that,  on  all  tlic  three 
points  just  indicated,  in  so  far  as  they  arc  elements 
of  the  incjuiry  into  the  history  of  the  religion  of 
Israel,  various  views  may  be  held,  and  that  the 
Biblical   theory,    williin    ('(>rtain  linutations,   leaves 


Authoritative  Institutions — tJieir  Early  Date.   15 

room  for  great  latitude  of  view  on  details,  (a) 
lleligious  observances,  such  as  sacrifice,  arc  si)oken 
of  as  matters  of  course,  and  existing  before  there 
was  formal  legislation  in  regard  to  them.  Even  the 
so-called  Grundschrift  or  Priestly  Code  does  not 
exclude  sacrifices  from  the  patriarchal  age,  nor 
represent  them  as  originating  in  the  time  of  Moses. 
Nor  is  there  anything  either  in  history  or  in  the 
nature  of  the  case  to  make  it  improbable  that  usage 
at  a  certain  point  was  stamped  with  the  authority 
of  law.  (b)  Further,  if  we  take  the  statements  of 
the  law-books  themselves,  wc  are  led  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  laws  therein  contained  were  written 
down  at  ditTerent  times.  Moses  is  said  to  have 
written  this  and  that,  and  in  regard  to  many  more, 
it  is  not  said  who  wrote  them  at  all.  In  regard  to 
the  collections  of  laws  in  particular — while  it  is  said 
that  Moses  wrote  the  laws  of  the  book  of  the 
Covenant  and  the  Deuteronomic  Code — it  is  not 
said  that  he  wrote  the  Levitical  laws,  nor  are  we 
told  who  wrote  them,  (c)  And  finally,  the  books  of 
the  Pentateuch,  as  composite  productions,  contain- 
ing both  law  and  history,  are  anonymous  composi- 
tions, and  nmy  have  assumed  their  present  form 
after  the  laws  had  existed  for  a  time  as  a  separate 
code  or  codes.  ■  It  is  greatly  to  be  lamented  that  so 
much  has  been  made  of  the  mere  question  of  the 
authorship  of  these  books  containing  the  laws. 
Although  other  books,  which  are  also  anonymous, 
are  accepted  as  materials  for  histoiT,  although  tlic 
books  of  the  Pentateuch,  with  supreme  indillerence, 
say  nothing   about   their  authorshij),  it    has   been 


t6  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

tacitly  assumed  that  their  whole  value  stands  or  falls 
with  their  Mosaic  or  non-Mosaic  authorship.  A 
broad  distinction  is  evident  between  the  ques- 
tions, By  whose  instrumentality  or  authority  was 
law  given?  and,  By  whose  hands  were  books  written 
which  contain  the  law?  The  essential  question  is 
not  as  to  the  early  or  late  date  of  the  books  of  the 
Pentateuch,  but  as  to  the  relation  in  which  the 
legislation  of  the  Pentateuch  stands  to  the  whole 
development  of  the  history. 

On  this  deeper  question  of  the  origin  and  religious 
meaning  of  the  laws  and  institutions  the  two  theories 
are  as  much  opposed  as  avc  have  seen  them  else- 
where. For  just  as,  in  the  matter  of  religious 
conception  and  belief,  the  earlier  phase  is  toned 
down  ])y  the  modern  historians  to  a  naturalistic 
level,  so  in  the  matter  of  law  tlie  element  of  early 
positive  enactment  is  minimised  to  the  lowest  pos- 
sible degree.  Custom  and  usage  are  made  to 
account  for  the  origin  of  a  great  part  of  the  laws; 
for  ages  the  nation  is  supposed  to  have  been  with- 
out authoritative  law;  and  the  actual  amount  of 
influence  exerted  by  Moses  is  so  explained  away  as 
to  be  almost  inai)preciable.  On  tlie  other  hand, 
though  the  Hebrew  writers  do  not  say  anything  as 
to  who  wrote  the  law-books,  tliey  assert  positively 
that  the  law  laid  down  in  these  books  is  Mosaic. 
Moreover,  the  tlieories  being  opposed  as  to  tlie 
character  of  tlie  Mosaic  religion,  their  interpreta- 
tion of  the  institutions  will  vary.  To  a  deity  who 
might  be  worshipped  anywhere,  who  was  circum- 
scribed in   the  place  of  his   al)ode,  and    who   was 


Authoritative  Institutions — their  Early  Date.  11 

merely  a  storm  or  sun  or  fire  god,  a  kind  of  ser- 
vice might  be  appropriate  that  would  be  without 
proper  significance  in  the  worship  of  a  deity  who 
was  in  his  central  attributes  holy,  and  in  his  nature 
spiritual.  Tiie  Mosaic  or  pre-prophetic  religion  will 
determine  the  significance  (if  not  the  outward  form) 
of  the  Mosaic  or  pre-prophetic  institutions. 

It  is  clear  that  to  determine  the  point  in  dispute, 
we  must  appeal,  if  possible,  to  some  independent 
testimony  outside  tlie  laws  themselves  or  the  books 
in  which  they  are  contained;  and  that  the  value  we 
shall  attach  to  these  legislative  books  will  depend 
on  the  conclusions  to  be  drawn  from  such  indepen- 
dent sources.  The  only  use  that  can  be  made  of  the 
laws  themselves  in  the  controversy,  is  to  compare 
them  with  one  another  and  with  the  prophetical  and 
historical  literature  whose  authority  is  admitted. 
Such  a  comparison  has  in  fact  been  the  task  of 
criticism.  As  a  result,  the  modern  historians  claim 
to  have  proved,  (1)  that  the  history  of  the  time  suc- 
ceeding Moses,  and  down  to  a  comparatively  late 
period,  does  not  show  that  the  laws  claiming  to  be 
Mosaic  were  in  force,  but  shows,  on  the  contrary, 
that  the  practice  of  the  best  men  of  the  nation  was 
inconsistent  with  them;  from  which  the  inference  is 
drawn,  that  these  laws  were  not  up  to  that  time  in 
existence;  and  (2)  that  the  laws  themselves  which 
are  called  Mosaic,  when  examined  and  compared, 
are  so  inconsistent  with  one  another  that  they  can- 
not all  have  been  in  force  at  the  same  time;  particu- 
larly there  are  three  codes  discernil)lc,  which  indicate 
three  distinct  modes  of  observance,  and  must  have 


78  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

belonged  to  three  historical  periods,  widely  separated, 
which  periods  can  be  determined  by  comparing  the 
requirements  of  the  respective  codes  with  the  prac- 
tice prevailing  at  different  times  in  the  history. 
In  short,  gradual  growth  by  development  is  to  be 
made  to  explain  the  origin  of  institutions,  just  as  it 
explained  the  origin  of  religious  conceptions;  and 
this  growth  is  to  be  exhibited  within  the  field  in 
which  we  have  the  means  of  testing  conclusions  by 
historical  documents.  Accordingly,  just  as  we  had 
to  inquire  into  the  elements  of  the  Mosaic  religion 
of  Jahaveh,  and  trace  the  connection  of  the  pre- 
prophetic  with  the  prophetic  religion,  so  here  we 
have  to  inquire  into  the  origin  of  the  laws,  and  the 
consistency  of  the  codes  which  are  contained  in  the 
Pentateuch,  in  order  to  determine  whether,  or  to 
what  extent,  they  may  be  held  to  be,  or  proved  not 
to  be.  Mosaic.  In  the  present  chapter  we  confine 
ourselves  to  the  inquiry  whether  there  is  any  pre- 
sumptive or  any  positive  proof  that  Moses  gave  to 
Israel  such  a  positive  legislation  as  the  law-books 
exhibit. 

It  occurs  at  once  as  a  striking  thing  that  the 
uniform  tradition  is,  that  Moses  gave  laws  and 
ordinances  to  Israel.  And  that  it  is  not  a  blind 
ascription  of  everything  to  some  great  ancestor, 
may  be  gathered  from  the  fiict  that  there  are  ordi- 
nances and  customs  which  are  not  traced  to  him.  The 
Sabbath  is  made  as  old  as  the  creation ;  circumcision  is 
a  mark  of  the  covenant  with  Abraham;  sacrifices  are 
pre-Mosaic;  and  the  abstaining  from  tlie  sinew  that 
shrank  is  traced  to  tlie  time  of  Jacob.     The  bodv  of 


Authoritative  Institutions — tliclr  Earhj  Date.   79 

laws,  liowevcr,  that  formed  the  constitution  of 
Israel  as  a  people,  is  invariably  referred  to  Moses. 
There  must  ho  some  historical  basis  for  the  mere 
fact  tliat  all  the  three  successive  codes,  as  they  are 
called,  dating,  as  is  alleged,  from  periods  sepa- 
rated from  one  another  by  centuries,^  are  ascribed  to 
Moses;  whereas  another  alleged  code,  found  in 
the  book  of  Ezekiel,  never  obtained  authoritative 
recognition.  The  persistence  with  which  it  is 
represented  that  law,  moral  and  ceremonial,  came 
from  Moses,  and  the  acceptance  of  the  laws  by  the 
whole  people  as  of  Mosaic  origin,  proves  at  least 
that  it  was  a  deeply  seated  belief  in  the  nation  that 
the  great  leader  had  given  some  formal  legal 
constitution  to  his  people.  It  seems  to  me  that  it 
is  trilling  witli  a  great  subject  to  say,  in  the  same 
breath,  that  Moses  could  scarcely  have  been  even  the 
author  of  the  whole  of  the  Decalogue,  and  also  that 
he  '^was  regarded  as  the  great  lawgiver,  and  all 
laws  which  God  was  considered  to  have  sanctioned 
were  placed  under  his  name,  that  being  the  regular 
and  only  method  of  conferring  authority  upon  new 
enactments."  ^  The  testimony  of  a  nation  is  not  to 
be  so  lightly  set  aside:  it  is  the  work  of  criticism  to 
explain  and  account  for  tradition,  not  to  give  it  the 
lie.  And  all  the  circumstances  of  the  time  make  it 
abundantly  probable  that  the  tradition  rests  upon 
some  good  foundation. 

Moses  and  his  people  came  out  of  a  country  that 
had  been  long  civilised,  and  in  which  ritual  and 

1  The  separate  codes  will  bo  more  particularly  described  in  tlie  next 
chapter. 

2  Allan  Menzies,  National  iieligiou,  p.  17  f. 


80  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

legislation  were  particularly  attended  to.  1'hey 
came  into  a  land  which,  as  we  now  know,  possessed 
civilisation  and  education  before  they  appeared  in 
it,  and  they  not  only  secured  a  footing,  but  gained 
supremacy  and  maintained  it,  believing  all  the 
time  that  they  were  divinely  guided.  Now,  if  the 
tribes  whom  Moses  led  had  any  unity  at  all,  if  they 
did  not  wander  aimlessly  into  Canaan,  if  they  had 
the  least  feeling  of  the  necessity  of  adhering  closely 
together  in  the  face  of  the  inhabitants  whom  they 
dispossessed,^  such  a  unity  and  cohesion  would  be 
produced  or  fostered  by  the  possession  of  definite 
laws  or  customs,  marking  them  off  from  their  neigh- 
bours, and  binding  them  together  into  one.  Mere 
common  belief,  especially  of  th^-  elementary  kind 
which  modern  writers  allow  to  them,  would  not 
have  sufficed  to  separate  them  from  the  Canaanite 
inhabitants  in  such  a  way  as  to  ensure  their  ultimate 
supremacy;  a  common  tradition  must  be  pnt  into 
practical  shape  and  active  operation  by  common 
observances.  Even  if  the  work  of  Moses  was  merely 
the  consolidation  of  common  observances  prevailing 
prior  to  the  Mosaic  age,  these  must  have  been 
stamped  with  special  authority,  supplemented  by 
special  institutions,  and  raised  to  the  dignity  of 
definite  ordinance,  if  there  is  any  truth  at  all  in  the 
unanimous  ascription  of  law  to  Moses.  Moreover,  if 
ever  there  was  a  crisis  in  the  history  of  Israel  at  which 
the  setting  up  of  formal  institutions,  the  laying 
down  of  formal  rules  for  national  guidance,  was 
naturally  to  be  expected,  it  was  at  this  stage.     It  is 

1    See  Note  XXIV. 


Authoritative  Institutions — their  Early  Date.  81 

strange  indeed  that  critical  historians  of  Israel 
should  postulate  the  putting  forth  of  ^'legislative 
programmes "  at  various  later  points  in  Israel's 
history,  and  should  be  so  unwilling  to  admit  the 
same  for  the  time  of  Moses.  For  just  as  individuals 
in  their  early  life,  when  moved  by  a  high  purpose, 
sketch  out  for  themselves  careers  and  lay  down 
rules  of  conduct  and  principles  of  action,  it  was 
surely  the  most  natural  thing  in  the  w^orld  for  the 
great  leader  of  Israel  to  trace  out  a  programme  of 
conduct,  and  hedge  it  round  with  precautionary 
measures,  at  a  time  w^hen  his  nation  w^as  to  pass 
from  a  nomadic  to  a  more  settled  life,  and  when 
they  were  liable  to  be  led  away  by  various  tempta- 
tions from  the  simplicity  of  their  primitive  faith. 
Any  one  who  can  recall  his  plans  and  resolutions 
formed  in  early  life,  or  who  has  perchance  pre- 
served juvenile  journals  or  memoranda,  will  admit 
that  in  such  circumstances  there  is  a  natural  ten- 
dency to  run  into  minute  details,  which  the  exigen- 
cies of  actual  life  afterwards  modify  or  even  render 
impracticable.  The  First  Book  of  Discipline,  drawn 
up  by  Knox  and  his  associates  at  the  Reformation 
in  Scotland,  is  a  striking  historical  instance  of  such 
a  programme.^  So  that,  if  in  the  post-Mosaic 
history  of  Israel  we  find  little  mention  of  many  of 
the  enactments  ascribed  to  Moses  and  the  early 
Mosaic  time,  this  need  not  surprise  us  when  we  bear 
in  mind  the  totally  new  environments  of  life  of  the 
people,  and  the  common  frailties  of  human  nature. 

1  story's  Church  of  Scotland,  Past  and  Present.    See  particularly  vol. 
ii.  p.  437,  foot. 


82  Early  Relirjion  of  Israel. 

How  much  more  may  be  implied  in  the  undoubted 
fact  that  the  succeeding  books  take  little  account  of 
tiie  detailed  legislation  of  the  Pentateuch,  we  need 
not  here  consider.  Enough  has  been  said  to  prove 
in  a  general  way  that  a  certain  amount  of  legis- 
lation must  be  ascribed  to  Moses.  If  his  name 
stands  for  any  fact  at  all  in  the  history  of  Israel,  if 
in  any  conceivable  way  he  made  an  abiding  impres- 
sion upon  his  people,  it  was  by  producing,  or  by 
cementing  an  already  existing  intimate  relation 
))etween  their  consciousness  and  the  national  God. 
This  relation  the  Biblical  writers  call  a  covenant.^ 
Critical  writers  can  hardly  avoid  using  the  expres- 
sion, and  are  bound  to  admit  the  fact,  by  whatever 
name  it  may  be  called.  They  tell  us  that  the  com- 
pact amounted  to  this,  ^^  Israel  was  to  be  Jahaveh's 
people,  and  Jahaveh  Israel's  God."  Is  it  conceiv- 
able that  at  a  period  such  as  that  in  which  this 
compact  is  placed,  at  a  time  when  the  nation  needed 
outward  props  and  helps,  a  time  when  forms  of  wor- 
ship and  observance  were  the  most  natural  and 
unavoidable,  even  a  bare  covenant  like  this  should 
have  been  unaccompanied  with  any  ceremonial  to 
keep  it  alive  in  the  national  consciousness,  and 
impress  its  significance  upon  their  lives?  Can  we 
believe  that  Moses  taught  the  people  that  the  God 
whom  they  could  not  see  was  ''just  and  righteous," 
that  by  being  just  and  righteous  they  could  best 
please  Him,  that,  in  a  word,  ''  Moses  set  up  the 
great  principle  that  the  true  sphere  of  religion 
is   common   life,"^   and   yet  that   he    left  a  i)eo})le 

1  See  Note  XXII.,  and  comparo  above,  p.  313. 

2  Allan  Menzies,  National  Religion,  p.  24. 


Authoritative  I  institutions — tlielr  Early  Date.   83 

such  as  they  were  without  any  ordinances  of  wor- 
ship, and  without  any  haws  for  the  gui(hince  of  their 
chiily  life?  A  people,  too,  who  at  that  very  time, 
and  in  the  power  of  their  faith,  were  asserting  their 
individuality!  A  "peculiar"  people,  as  such  a 
covenant  necessarily  made  them,  must  have  dis- 
tinctive outward  marks;  a  "  holy  "  nation,  on  the 
very  lowest  ideas  of  holiness,  must  be  separated 
from  what  is  unclean;  a  "holy"  deity,  still  on  the 
most  elementary  conception  of  the  term,  must  be 
fenced  off  l)y  some  restrictions,  must  be  reverenced 
by  some  sacred  ceremonial.  The  very  idea  of  a 
covenant,  if  it  does  not  even  imply  sacrifice,  is 
intimately  associated  with  it  (Ps.  1.  5).  Whether 
the  ceremonies  were  ada})tations  oi  old  customs  or 
new  institutions,  if  such  a  definite  thing  as  a  cove- 
nant stands  at  the  threshold  of  the  national  history, 
then  to  deny  to  Moses  the  organisation  of  Israel  on 
the  basis  of  definite  observances,  not  only  of  a  moral 
but  also  of  a  ceremonial  character,  is  altogether  an 
excess  of  arbitrariness,  and  leaves  the  unvarying 
tradition  of  later  time  without  an}^  adequate  explana- 
tion or  support. 

But  more  precise  and  direct  proof  may  be  drawn 
from  the  prophetical  and  other  accepted  literature 
of  the  time  to  wiiich  we  are  confining  ourselves.  We 
may  not  have,  indeed,  unequivocal  "references"  to 
the  books  of  the  Law,  or  to  the  codes  in  which  cer- 
tain laws  are  contained;  nor  do  we  find  full  accounts 
of  the  observances  of  the  minute  ceremonial  and  lit- 
urgical prescriptions  of  the  Pentateuch.  It  has 
been  too  much  the  habit  of  apologetic  writers  to  look 


84  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

for  positive  citations  of  tlio  books  of  tlic  Pentateuch, 
or  to  argue  from  the  use  of  certain  expressions  in 
prophetical  or  historical  books  that  the  legislative 
books  in  which  such  or  similar  expressions  also 
occur  were  then  in  existence  and  were  thus  con- 
sciously referred  to.^  But  critical  writers  have  gone 
to  the  other  extreme  in  arguing  that  where  a  law  or 
ordinance  is  not  mentioned  by  historical  or  prophet- 
ical authors,  it  was  not  known  to  them,  and  there- 
fore had  no  existence  in  their  day.  We  shall  have 
to  test  the  value  of  this  argument  in  the  sequel;  in 
the  meantime  we  have  to  look  at  the  testimony 
borne  by  the  prophetical  and  other  books  on  this 
subject. 

From  the  whole  tone  of  the  prophetical  literature 
we  may  argue  in  a  general  way  that  there  was  in  the 
times  of  the  earliest  writing  prophets  a  universal 
recognition  of  a  well-known  norm  or  rule  of  conduct 
as  possessed  by  the  nation,  though  sadly  dishonoured 
so  far  as  concerns  its  observance.  The  attitude  of 
reproof  taken  up  by  the  prophets,  and  the  absence 
of  gainsaying  on  the  part  of  the  people  whom  they 
addressed,  prove  the  recognition  of  some  authorita- 
tive norm  lying  at  the  threshold  of  the  nation's  his- 
tory, according  to  the  principles  laid  down  by  St. 
Paul  (Rom.  iii.  20),  that  through  the  law  is  the 
knowledge  of  sin,  and  (v.  13)  that  sin  is  not  imputed 
where  there  is  no  law.^  An  argument  of  this  kind 
is  not  indeed  sufficient  to  establish  the  Mosaic  origin 
of  all  the  legislation  ot  the  Pentateuch;  it  may  not 

1  See  before,  chajiter  v.  p.  108. 

2  So  De  Wette  reasoned  in  a  Review  of  Vatke  in  Theol.  Sturt.  u.  Krit. 
for  1837,  p.  1003. 


Authoritative  Institutions — their  Early  Date.    85 

even  necessarily  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  formal 
codes  were  in  existence  at  all;  but  it  warrants  the 
conclusion,  not  merely  that  guidance  was  given  to 
the  people,  from  time  to  time  as  occasion  required, 
by  prophetic  or  priestly  men,  but  that  some  stand- 
ard of  obedience  and  religious  observance  was  ac- 
knowledged as  set  up  for  permanent  appeal  and 
authority. 

But  we  can  go  much  further  than  this.  The  man- 
ner in  which  the  earliest  prophets  refer  to  such  an 
authority — if  language  is  to  retain  its  ordinary 
meaning  at  all — implies  principles  of  action  em- 
bodied in  concrete  recognised  laws.  When  Amos 
threatens  Judah,  ''because  they  have  rejected  the 
law  of  the  Lord,  and  have  not  kept  His  statutes  " 
(Amos  ii.  4),  whether  he  is  thinking  of  books  or  not, 
he  is  certainly  thinking  of  certain  standing  princi- 
ples objectively  regarded  as  regulative  of  moral  and 
religious  life.  Law  or  Torah  may  conceivably  have 
been  at  first,  as  the  critics  assert,  no  more  than  in- 
struction conveyed  from  time  to  time  by  prophet  or 
priest;  and  this  matter  Ave  shall  consider  in  the  next 
chapter.  But  the  conjunction  of  the  word  ''stat- 
utes" leaves  no  room  for  doubt  that  the  prophet 
referred  to  an  objective  and  concrete  norm.  Torah 
may  be  teaching,  but  statutes  are  determinate 
things,  not  given  once  and  then  forgotten,  but  set 
up  as  a  standing  rule.  Moreover,  the  sins  for  which 
Israel  in  the  sequel  of  the  same  chapter  is  reproved, 
though  all  of  a  moral  kind,  are  just  such  sins  as  are 
condemned  in  the  moral  parts  of  the  Pentatcuchal 
codes.     This  prophet  has  no  doubt,  and  his  hearers 


86  Early  Rdifjloii  of  Israel. 

dare  not  deny,  that  the  oppression  of  the  poor,  tlic 
retaining  of  plctlgcs,'  the  perversion  of  justice,  and 
the  like,  are  violations  of  rules  which  every  one  ad- 
mitted to  be  binding  upon  the  nation.  It  is  partic- 
ularly to  be  noticed  that  the  sins  for  which  Israel 
and  Judah  are  threatened  are  more  precise  and 
special  than  those  breaches  of  the  most  elementary 
laws  of  humanity  against  which  the  prophetic  re- 
proofs of  other  nations,  Damascus,  Philistia,  Tyre, 
Edom,  Amnion,  and  Moab,  are  directed;  and  that  it 
is  precisely  in  Judah,  Avhere  ^Maw  "  and  '^  statutes  " 
would  be  best  known  and  most  universally  acknowl- 
edged, that  their  violation  is  singled  out  for  repro- 
bation.^ 

The  case  is  similar  with  the  prophet  Hosea. 
^'They  have  wandered  from  me,"  he  says  (vii.  13): 
"they  have  transgressed  my  covenant  and  tres- 
passed against  my  law"  (viii.  1).  The  sins  for 
which  he  reproves  the  men  of  Israel  of  his  time  are 
just  such  sins  as  the  moral  laws  of  the  Mosaic  legis- 
lation condemn;^  and  we  have  in  one  passage  a 
clear  indication  that  Avritten  law,  and  that  of  con- 
sidera])le  compass,  was  known  and  acknowledged  in 
his  days.  The  passage  (llosea  viii.  12),  much  as  it 
has  been  commented  upon,  and  sought  to  be  ex- 
plained away  in  this  connection,  cannot  be  taken  to 
give  any  other  sense  that  is  at  all  reasonable. 
Whether  we  read,  with  the  Revised  Version,  ' '  though 

1  Amos  H.  8.    Comp.  Exod.  xxii.  26. 

2  I  do  not  press  the  aUusions  In  Amos  Iv.  4,  ."i,  aUhouph  an  argument 
might  be  drawn  for  tlie  recognition  of  ritual  laws,  which  are  tlioro  rep- 
resented as  exaggerated  or  perverted.— See  Bredenkamp,  Gosotz  u.  Pro- 
pheton,  p.  8'2. 

3  See  the  whole  of  Uusea  Iv. 


Authoritative  Institutions—their  Early  Date.   87 

I  write  for  him  my  law  in  ten  thousand  precepts," 
or,  with  the  margin,  ''  I  wrote  for  him  the  ten  thou- 
sand things  of  my  law  '—whether,  that  is  to  say,  we 
take  the  words  as  positive  or  hypothetical,  as  refer- 
ring to  the  past,  or  to  the  present  or  future— the 
prophet  indicates  a  thing  that  his  hearers  would  re- 
gard as  either  done,  or  natural  to  be  done,  and  that 
thing  is  the  writing  of  law  in  a  copious  manner,  and 
the  writing  done  directly  by  divine  authority. 

The  manner  in  which  Wellhausen  gets  rid  of  this 
passage  is  exceedingly  characteristic.     He  says:  ^— 

"In  another  passage  (viz.,  this)  we  read,  '  Ephraim  has  built 
for  himself  many  altars,  to  sin ;  the  altars  are  there  for  him,  to 
sin.  How  many  soever  my  instructions  {torothai)  may  be,  they 
are  counted  those  of  a  stranger.'  This  text  has  had  the  unmer- 
ited misfortune  of  having  been  forced  to  do  service  as  a  proof 
that  Hosea  knew  of  copious  writings  similar  in  contents  to  our 
Pentateuch.  All  that  can  be  drawn  from  the  contrast,  '  instead 
of  following  my  instructions  they  oflfer  sacrifice'  (for  that  is  the 
meaning  of  the  passage),  is  that  the  propliet  had  never  once 
dreamed  of  the  possibility  of  cultus  being  made  the  subject  of 
Jehovah's  directions." 

Here,  to  begin  with,  Wellhausen  omits  in  his  cita- 
tion the  significant  word  ^' write,"  a  proceeding 
which,  looking  to  the  question  involved,  is,  at  the 
least,  not  ingenuous;  for  the  word  so  rendered  can- 
not be  toned  down  to  the  general  sense  of '^pre- 
scribe."  And  then,  if  all  that  the  passage  means  is 
what  he  says,  '^  instead  of  following  my  instructions 
they  oflcr  sacrifice,"  is  it  not  a  very  remarkable  way 
of  saying  it,  and  does  not  the  mention  of '^  writing, " 
in  this  subsidiary  fashion,  i)i-ove  all  the  more  strongly 

1  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  67. 


88  Early  Beligion  of  Israel. 

that  ^vritten  instructions  (torothdi,  and  where  arc 
such  to  he  found  if  not  in  some  code  or  other?)  were 
familiar  and  well  known?  Not  in  this  fashion  does 
Wellhausen  pass  by  significant  words  in  a  verse 
when  these  can  be  turned  to  the  support  of  his  the- 
ory. The  fact  that  '^writing"  occurs  to  the  proph- 
et where  he  does  not  base  his  main  argument  upon 
it,  is  the  strong  point;  and  thus,  occurring  in  the 
connection  in  which  it  stands,  this  single  passage 
suffices  to  establish  the  existence  of  written  law  of 
considerable  compass  at  the  time  of  Hosea.  And  as 
if  to  assure  us  that  ritual  ordinance  was  as  well 
known  as  moral  precept,  and  as  if  to  anticipate  Well- 
hausen's  remark  that  'Hhe  prophet  never  once 
dreamed  of  the  possibility  of  cultus  being  made  the 
subject  of  Jehovah's  direction,"  the  prophet  goes  on 
in  the  following  verse  to  say,  ''As  for  the  sacrifices 
of  mi7ie  offerings,  they  sacrifice  flesh  and  eat  it." 
The  occurrence  of  the  single  suffixal  mine  here,  as 
in  Isaiah  i.  12,  ''to  tread  my  courts,"  in  a  passage 
in  which  that  prophet  is  by  modern  critics  main- 
tained to  deny  the  divine  authority  of  all  sacrificial 
service,  are  much  more  convincing  proofs  to  the  con- 
trary than  formal  statements  would  have  been.  Both 
these  prophets  rebuke  the  performance  of  sacrifice 
as  it  went  on  in  their  day,  and  we  need  not  wonder 
at  the  sharpness  of  the  rebukes.  But  at  the  same 
time,  both  of  them,  in  claiming  Temple  and  o fieri ngs 
as  belonging  rightly  to  Jahaveh,  tacitly  confirm  the 
supposition,  wliich  is  most  natural  in  itself,  that 
Israel  up  to  their  time  had  a  law  of  worship  which 
was  undisputed,  and  that   the  Temple,  set  apart  to 


Authoritative  Institutions — their  Earhj  Date.  89 

the  outward  service  of  the  national  God,  was  pro- 
vided with  an  authoritative  order  and  ritual/ 

These  indications  in  the  earliest  writing  prophets 
are  entirely  against  the  supposition  that  it  was 
through  the  influence  of  the  prophets  that  the  codes 
of  law  came  into  existence,  as  they  are  against  the 
idea  that  law  was  regarded  by  them  as  a  thing  still 
in  flux,  and  given  out  from  time  to  time  by  either 
prophet  or  priest  as  occasion  demanded.  Any  ref- 
erences that  are  found  to  laws  or  ordinances  in  the 
prophetical  writings  are  always  of  the  nature  of  ref- 
erences to  things  existing  and  well  known  in  their 
times.  If,  in  a  few  passages,  the  law  or  laws  are 
spoken  of  as  having  been  given  by  prophetic  media- 
tion, it  will  be  found  that  the  references  (as  in  Ezra 
ix.  10,  11)  will  apply  to  Moses,  who  is  regarded  as 
a  prophet  and  the  leader  of  the  prophets.  ^  In  any 
case,  the  law  or  norm  is  regarded  as  a  thing  ante- 
cedent to  the  prophets,  and  having  a  divine  sanction 
and  authority  apart  from  themselves. 

Passing  beyond  the  prophetical  books — and  we 
have  only  glanced  at  the  earliest  of  these — we  might 
find  the  same  conclusion  confirmed  in  a  very  strik- 
ing way  by  an  examination  of  the  Psalms,  in  which 
God's  law,  statutes,  and  commandments  are  referred 
to  in  such  a  manner  as  to  suggest  positive,  well-un- 
derstood things  as  the  guides  of  religious  conduct, 
the  comfort  of  a  religious  life.  Here,  however,  the 
dates  and  authorship  of  the  compositions  are  so  much 
disputed,  that,  with  the  limitations  we  have  im- 
posed on  our  inquiry,  we  must   content   ourselves 

1  See  Note  XXV.  2  Deut.  xvUl.  15;  Hosea  xli.  13. 


90  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

with  a  brief  reference.  When  all  has  been  done  that 
modern  criticism  can  do  to  relegate  the  bulk  of  the 
Psalms  to  a  late  period,  and  make  the  Psalter  the 
book  of  praise  of  the  post-exilian  synagogue,  there 
still  remain,  even  in  the  accepted  pre-exilian  Psalms, 
certain  expressions  which  cannot  be  explained  awa}'. 
Even  so  thorough-going  a  critic  as  Hitzig  accepted 
the  latter  part  of  Psalm  xix. ,  with  its  praise  of  the 
law,  as  Davidic,  although  Chejne  ^  has  recently  pro- 
nounced it  to  be  late.  But  if  any  part  of  the  Psalter 
is  to  be  ascribed  to  David  at  all,  it  is  the  18th 
Psalm;  and,  not  to  speak  of  other  references  it  con- 
tains to  God's  ^^ways"  and  His  ''word,"  it  is  not 
easy  to  see  what  precise  meaning  can  be  attached  to 
V.  22,  'Tor  all  His  judgments  were  before  me,  and 
I  did  not  put  away  His  statutes  from  me,"  if  there 
was  no  body  of  positive  religious  principles  of  action 
existent  in  his  day.  The  ''uncritical"  English 
reader  should,  however,  be  reminded  here  that  it  is 
not  on  linguistic  considerations,  but  on  the  grounds 
of  a  higher  criticism — i.e.,  of  a  theory  of  the  reli- 
gious development — that  so  many  of  the  Psalms  are 
assigned  to  a  late  date. 

Let  us  next  consider  what  conclusion  is  to  be 
drawn  from  the  undisputed  portions  of  the  books  of 
Judges  and  Samuel.  Though  they  do  not  give  us 
much  information  as  to  legal  observances,  and  are 
usually  claimed  as  proving  that  the  Deuteronomic 
and  Levitical  codes  were  unknown  at  the  periods  to 
wliich  they  refer,  there  arc  certain   indications  in 

1  The  Book  of  Psalms;  or,  The  Praisos  of  Israol.    A  new  translation 
With  commentary  (1888). 


Authoritative  Institutions — their  Early  Dat^.  91 

them  pointing  unmistakably  to  the  conclusion  that 
there  was  a  recognised  order  of  some  kind  in  those 
days.  It  is  self-evident  that  the  Tabernacle  at 
Shiloh  could  not  have  existed,  nor  have  formed  the 
centre  of  worship,  without  some  recognised  ritual. 
Even  should  it  be  proved  that  the  practices  of  Eli's 
sons  mentioned  in  the  book  of  Samuel  were  inconsis- 
tent with  the  requirements  of  the  Levitical  code, 
this  is  no  more  than  might  have  been  expected  from 
such  men.  The  wonder  would  be  if  the  practices  of 
men  such  as  they  are  depicted  were  in  keeping  witli 
any  conceivable  autlioritative  rule  at  all.  The  point, 
however,  now  insisted  on  is,  that  the  Shiloh  worship 
must  have  been  invested  with  authority;  and  there- 
fore that  the  idea  of  authoritative  law  for  ceremonial 
was  familiar  by  that  time.  And  so  the  sacrifices 
offered  by  Samuel,  even  should  it  be  proved  that  his 
manner  of  performing  them  contradicts  the  require- 
ments of  the  codes,  imply  a  recognised  and  authori- 
tative law  or  rule  of  sacrifice.  They  are  offered  to 
Jahaveh  and  in  connection  with  the  national  recog- 
nition of  Him,  and  must  therefore  have  been  regard- 
ed as  sanctioned  and  accepted  by  Him.  In  other 
words,  at  that  time  there  was  some  received  legisla- 
tion. So  in  the  period  of  the  Judges  there  are  indi- 
cations that  the  people  were  acquainted  with  some 
standard  of  authority,  and  accustomed  to  concep- 
tions involving  national  obligations. 

There  is,  for  example,  the  incidental  mention  of 
the  ark  in  Judges  xx.  27,  28.  It  is  true  this  occurs 
in  a  portion  of  the  book  which  is  pronounced  to  be 
late.     But  even  if  we  had  not  this  mention  at  all, 


92  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

we  come  upon  the  ark  again  at  the  opening  of  the 
book  of  Sam  no],  wlicre  it  is  the  centre  of  the  worship 
for  tlie  time;  and  we  shouhl  be  bound  to  explain 
whence  it  came,  and  liow  it  had  acquired  this  dignity. 
The  very  brevity  of  the  allusion  however,  in  Judges, 
is  proof  that  the  writer  looked  upon  the  ark  as  a 
national  institution;  and  if  the  statement  has  any 
historic  value  at  all,  it  proves  the  possession  by 
Israel  of  some  outward  bond  of  religious  life.  In 
other  words,  they  were  not  at  this  time  merely  a 
number  of  isolated  tribes,  related  in  some  loose  way 
to  one  another,  and  owning  one  common  tribal  god; 
but  they  had,  previous  to  this  time,  been  accustomed 
to  regard  themselves  as  one  people,  and,  as  a  mark  of 
their  unity,  had  some  form  of  outward  worship.  We 
must  therefore  go  back  to  the  time  preceding  the 
Judges  for  some  account  of  this  feature  of  their  reli- 
gious life;  and  no  Biblical  writer  gives  the  least  hint 
of  the  existence  of  anything  like  it  in  the  early  pa- 
triarchal age.  The  reference  to  Phinehas,  the  son  of 
Eleazar,  the  son  of  Aaron,  who  ministers  at  the  ark, 
indicating  a  hereditary  priesthood  in  the  family  of 
Aaron,  of  course  does  not  suit  the  modern  theory. 
It  is  simply  called  by  Wellhausen^  '^a  gloss  which 
forms  a  very  awkward  interruption."  Much  more 
to  his  purpose  is  the  statement  (in  xviii.  30)  that 
Jonathan,  the  son  of  Gershom,  the  son  of  Moses, 
became  a  priest  to  tlie  Danites,  as  a  proof  that  there 
was  no  regular  Aaronic  priesthood — although  it  is 
added  in  the  next  verse  that  ^'  Micah's  graven  image" 
was  at  Dan  "  all  the  time  that  the  house  of  God  was 

«  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  237. 


Authoritative  Institutions — their  Early  Date,  93 

inShiloh."  At  all  events  we  have  here,  in  these 
two  incidental  allusions,  sufficient  to  carry  us  back 
to  a  period  antecedent  to  the  Judges  for  an  explana- 
tion of  the  religious  position  of  the  people  at  that 
time.  The  ark  of  God,  a  priesthood,  whether  here- 
ditary or  not,  a  house  of  God  at  Shiloh — all  these 
imply  much  more  than  they  express.  The  priest 
must  have  a  function,  the  house  of  God  some  ritual, 
an  ark  some  history.  These  things  could  not  have 
been  borrowed  from  the  Canaanites  the  moment  the 
conquest  was  secured.  Even  such  matters  as  the 
distinction  of  clean  and  unclean  animals,  the  pro- 
hibition of  certain  foods,  and  the  treatment  of  lepers, 
which  may,  and  probably  do,  go  back  to  pre-Mosaic 
times,  imply  regulation,  ceremony,  and,  in  many 
cases,  the  offering  of  sacrifices.  All  these,  however, 
are  just  the  things  that  would  be  taken  under  the 
sanction  of  the  covenant,  which  was  to  set  apart  a 
holy  people,  and  made  matters  of  prescription  by  a 
legislative  founder  like  Moses.  For  it  is  always  to 
be  remembered  that  by  this  time  certainly  the  Israel- 
ite tribes  were  in  possession  of  the  Jahaveh  religion. 
These  outward  arrangements,  whatever  their  origin, 
were  associated  with  their  worship  of  Him  as  their 
only  God;  and  as  that  religion,  on  any  explanation 
of  it,  was  the  characteristic  mark  separating  them 
from  their  neighbours,  it  is  surely  most  extraordinary 
to  suppose  that  the  outward  concomitants  of  the  re- 
ligion should  present  no  difference  from  the  worship 
of  the  peoples  around  them. 

Again,  it  is  maintained  by  Wellhausen  and  his 
school   that  the   tribe   of   Levi    was    originally   a 


94  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

secular  tribe  like  the  others,  and  associated  with 
the  kindred  tribe  of  Simeon,  whose  fate  it  shared  in 
being  dispersed  in  Israel;  and  it  is  maintained  that 
the  Levitical  guild  was  a  growth  of  much  later  time, 
when  priestly  development  had  far  advanced.  Now 
the  story  of  Micah  in  the  book  of  Judges  is  much  re- 
lied on  by  the  critics  for  the  state  of  religion  ^  at 
this  early  period.  In  that  story  (chap,  xvii.)  a 
young  man  of  the  family  of  Judah,  who  was  a  Levite, 
departs  from  Bethlehem-Judah  to  sojourn  where  he 
could  find  a  place,  and  comes  to  Micah,  who  hires 
him  to  be  his  priest.  It  is  added:  '^Then  said 
Micah,  Now  know  I  that  the  Lord  will  do  me  good, 
seeing  I  have  a  Levite  to  my  priest."  And  again, 
in  the  19th  chapter,  which  is  allowed  to  contain 
archaic  matter,  we  find  a  certain  Levite  sojourning 
on  the  farther  side  of  the  hill-country  of  Ephraim. 
Now  it  might  be  said,  these  are  simjily  members  of 
the  extinct  tribe  of  Levi.  But  it  does  seem  remark- 
able that  in  both  cases  they  should  be  seen  sojourn- 
ing— moving  about,  in  fact — as  the  Levites,  accord- 
ing to  the  legal  requirement,  might  be  expected  to 
do.  And  more  remarkable  is  the  fact  that  they  are 
specially  called  Levites — though  why  the  tribal 
designation  is  kept  up  when  the  tribe  is  absorbed  is 
not  clear;  and  most  remarkable  of  all  that  Alicah, 
steeped  to  the  lips  in  superstition,  should  believe 
that  good  was  sure  to  come  to  him  because  he  had 
a  Levite  for  a  priest.  On  the  theory  of  the  Old 
Testament  writers,  the  fiict,  notwithstanding  all  the 
surrounding  superstition,  is  easily  explained.     There 

1  See  chapter  Ix.  p.  231. 


Authoritative  Institutions — their  Early  Date.   95 

was  a  tribe  of  Levi  without  tcrritorj^,  witli  a  priestly 
or  quasl-])v\Q^i\y  fuiiction,  the  members  of  which 
were  held  in  repute  on  that  account.  On  the  new 
theory,  we  meet  with  a  feature  of  the  life  of  that 
riule  age  that  calls  for  an  explanation,  and  fails  to 
find  it.  To  my  mind  such  an  incidental  notice  is  a 
very  strong  corroboration  of  the  history  which  de- 
clares that  a  tribe  of  Levi  was  set  apart  for  sacred 
functions;  and  considering  the  age  in  which  the  events 
occurred,  a  more  convincing  proof  of  the  accuracy 
of  the  book  than  an  elaborate  attempt  to  show  that 
all  the  requirements  of  the  Levitical  law  were  in 
force.  The  discovery  of  a  fact  like  this,  in  the  dark- 
ness and  ignorance  of  those  times,  sends  us  back  to 
a  time  antecedent  to  the  Judges  for  the  proper  basis 
of  the  religious  constitution  of  Israel. 

The  references  we  thus  find  in  undou])tedly  early 
compositions,  though  not  perhaps  numerous,  yet 
just  because  they  are  incidental  and  indirect,  estab- 
lish a  very  strong  presumption  that  the  pre-prophe- 
tic  religion  was  backed  up  by  a  well-recognised  sys- 
tem of  positive  enactments,  and  account  for  the  per- 
sistent ascription  of  code  after  code  to  Moses. 
There  are  other  considerations,  pointing  in  the 
same  direction,  which  should  not  be  left  out  of  ac- 
count. There  is,  e.{/.,  the  remarkable  fact  that, 
during  the  whole  of  the  regal  period,  we  never  hear 
of  the  kings  making  laws,  while  there  is  a  constant 
reference  to  law,  in  some  sense  or  other,  as  an  au- 
thoritative thing  in  the  nation.  The  solitary  in- 
stance that  is  recorded  (1  Sam.  xxx.  25)  only  proves 
the  rule.     Again,  there  is  the  undisputed  fact  that 


96  Early  tteligion  of  Israel. 

a  recognised  priesthood  existed  in  Israel  from  very 
early  times.  It  is  hardly  conceivable  that  such  an 
order  should  have  existed  without  formal  regulation 
and  prescribed  functions;  and  as  the  critical  histo- 
rians refer  to  priestly  circles  the  very  earliest  collec- 
tion of  laws,  contained  in  the  book  of  the  Covenant, 
and  admit  that  the  priests  always  appealed  to  the 
authority  of  Moses,  the  inference  docs  not  seem  un- 
w^arranted  that  a  priestly  law,  of  some  extent  and  of 
a  definite  description,  formed  part  of  the  constitu- 
tion given  to  Israel  by  the  great  lawgiver. 

It  is,  it  must  be  confessed,  somewhat  remarkable 
that  so  little  is  said  of  Moses  by  the  earlier  prophets, 
though  some  have  overstated  the  matter,  and  have 
drawn  from  it  a  conclusion  which  is  quite  unwar- 
ranted. Ghillan}^,^  e.g.,  mentions  it  as  a  circum- 
stance hitherto  unnoticed,  that  the  name  of  Moses, 
except  in  the  post-exilic  Malachi  (iv.  4)  and  Daniel 
(ix.  11,  13),  does  not  occur  in  any  of  the  prophets; 
or  at  least  he  had  not  discovered  the  name  anywhere 
else  in  the  prophets — not  even  in  Ezekiel.  Else- 
where ^  he  says  that  Moses,  so  renowned  among  the 
Jews  after  the  captivity,  is  only  named  five  times 
altogether  in  the  whole  prophetical  literature,  and 
that  of  all  the  prophets  who  lived  before  B.C.  622, 
the  year  in  which  the  so-called  Mosaic  law  was  found  in 
the  Temple,  not  one  mentions  Moses  as  a  lawgiver 
or  appeals  to  his  authority.  Only  in  one  of  the 
prophets  before  that  period  (^licah  vi.  4)  is  there 
found  an  exception;  and  this  passage  is  declared  to 

1  Die  Menschenopfer  der  alten  Hebriier,  p.  27. 

3  Theologische  Briefe  von  Richard  von  der  Aim,  vol.  i.  p.  179  fl. 


Authoritative  Institutions — their  Early  Date.  97 

be  an  interpolation.  It  is  clear,  however,  that  Hosca, 
though  he  does  not  name  him,  directly  refers  to 
Moses  when  he  says  that  by  a  '^prophet"  the  Lord 
brought  Israel  out  of  Egypt  (xii.  13).  Jeremiah  also 
must  have  had  Moses  in  mind  when  he  said,  ^'  Since 
the  day  that  your  fathers  came  forth  out  of  the  land 
of  Egypt  unto  this  day,  I  have  even  sent  unto  you 
all  my  servants  the  prophets,  daily  rising  up  early 
and  sending  them  "  (Jer.  vii.  25,  &c.)  Moreover,  in 
Isa.  Ixiii.  11,  Moses  is  expressly  named.  The  infer- 
ence, however,  from  such  texts,  is  rather  against 
than  in  favour  of  the  modern  theory.^  So  precarious 
is  the  argument  from  silence,  that  one  is  almost 
tempted  to  maintain  the  paradox  that  the  things  which 
are  least  mentioned  were  the  most  familiar.  The 
historical  fact  stands  undoubted,  that,  from  first  to 
last,  legislation  was  ascribed  to  Moses;  and  if  the 
critics  should  succeed  in  makingout  from  this  silence 
that  the  earlier  prophets  knew  little  or  nothing  of 
Moses,  then  it  is  all  the  more  difficult  to  explain 
how  a  person  so  unknown  and  undistinguished  should 
have  had  invarial)ly  the  immense  work  of  legislation 
ascribed  to  him.  Much  rather  should  we  say  that 
the  work  of  Moses  was  so  familiar  to  the  national 
mind  that  there  was  no  need  to  mention  him  by 
name;  a  mere  reference  to  Egypt  or  Sinai  was  to 
the  popular  mind  more  than  a  verbal  mention.  We 
know  how  in  other  Scriptures,  which  are  not  from 
the  hands  of  prophets,  the  highest  place  is  as- 
signed to  Moses  as  an   organ  of  divine  revelation 

1  Konig,  Hauptprobleme.  p.  10;    Delitzsch,  Comm.  on  Genesis.  Eng. 
trans.,  vol.  i.  p.  11 1 


98  Early  Uelifjlon  of  Israel. 

(Kxo<l.  xxxiii.  11;  ^w\\\.  xii.  G-S;  Dcut.  xxxiv.  10). 
Such  })assages  are  surer  iiulicatioiis  than  express 
ineutioii  of  his  name,  that  Moses  was  in  the  estima- 
tion and  recollection  of  the  nation  '^  the  most  exalted 
figure  in  all  primitive  history  ";^  and  account  satis- 
factorily for  the  constant  ascription  to  him  of  the 
legislation.  Still  we  come  back  to  what  is  better 
than  verbal  references,  the  underlying  assumption  in 
the  earlier  prophets  und  extra-legislative  literature, 
that  there  was  an  objective  and  undisputed  norm,  to 
whose  authority  prophets,  priests,  and  people  alike 
acknowledged  submission.  The  question,  therefore, 
which  now  presses  itself  upon  us  for  solution  is. 
What  was  the  law^or  norm  which  is  thus  referred  to? 

1  Eanke,  Universal  History,  translated  by  Prothero,  p.  31. 


CHAPTER  XIY. 

AUTHORITATIVE   INSTITUTIONS — THEIR   RELIGIOUS 
BASIS. 

Brief  summary  of  leading  2)ositions  of  the  modern  school — 
Exainination  of  main  points:  (1)  Oral  law  before  written 
law;  references  to  law  of  priests  and  prophets;  theory  of 
law  orally  given  from  time  to  time  down  to  reign  of 
Josiah  shown  to  be  untenable:  (2)  Origin  of  feasts  and 
worship  according  to  the  theory — Natural  and  agricul- 
tural basis,  centralisation,  fixity,  historical  reference — 
The  theory  criticised:  (a)  the  mere  Joyous ness  of  a  nature 
feast  made  too  much  of;  the  basket  of  fruits;  (b)  exagger- 
ated imp)ortance  of  idea  of  centralisation;  (c)  failure  to 
show  transition  from  agricultural  to  religious  feasts,  and 
to  explain  the  historical  reference — The  Passover  a  glaring 
instance. 

In  the  preceding  chapter  we  have  seen  reasons  for 
ascribing  to  Moses  a  defini'te  and  authoritative 
system  of  law.  If  the  references  of  the  prophetical 
and  other  books  have  been  rightly  interpreted,  we 
should  expect  to  find  somewhere  a  code  or  codes  of 
laws  regulating  the  life  and  worship  of  Jahaveh's 
people;  and  as  we  know  of  no  other  laws  than  those 
contained  in  the  law-books,  there  is  a  primary  pre- 
sumption that  these  are  the  laws  in  question.  If 
not,  the  question  is,  Where  arc  the  laws,  or  what 


100  Karlij  Ut'lUjlou  of  Inrad. 

has  Ijccoiiio  of  thcin?  or,  i)ut  otlicrwirsc,   What  are 
the  laws  whicli  these  books  contain? 

The  account  tlie  modern  theory  gives  of  the  mat- 
ter is  something  to  the  following  elfect:  Moses 
neither  wrote  nor  ordained  an  elaborate  Ijody  of 
laws.  Law  (Torali)  was  at  first  and  for  a  long  time 
an  oral  system  of  instruction,  which  at  definite  and 
comparatively  late  periods  was  codified  for  special 
purposes.  Nor  are  the  religious  rites  and  cere- 
monies that  claim  to  have  been  given  by  Moses  of 
Mosaic  origin,  but  survivals'  of  old  customary  ob- 
servances, principally  connected  with  the  agricul- 
tural year,  and  transformed  at  a  late  time  into 
ceremonies  of  a  more  national  and  religious  nature. 

riiis  view,  it  is  claimed,  is  not  only  consistent  with 
the  statements  of  the  prophets,  but  is  the  only  one 
in  harmony  with  the  history.  To  the  main  points 
here  stated  we  now  turn  our  attention. 

(1.)  In  the  first  place,  we  are  told  there  was 
an  oral  law  before  there  was  a  written  law.     Tlie 

/riests  had  as  their  function  to  teach  the  peoi)le, 
the  prophets  also  were  teachers;  but  the  law  or 
teaching  communicated  by  botli  was  an  oral  tiling, 
given  forth  as  occasion  demanded,  at  the  recpiest  of 
individuals  Avho  came  to  the  priests  for  direction,  or 
spontaneously  by  the  prophets  when  they  were 
moved  to  give  their  testimony.  The  priestly  Torah 
was  a  more  regular  thing;  the  prophetic,  sj^oradic 
and  occasional;  and  there  was  this  difference,  that 
the  priest  rested  upon  tradition,  whereas  the  prophet 
spoke  by  his  own  authority,  or  rather  in  the  name 
of  God  directly.      "  The  priests  derived  their  Torah 


Aathoritatlve  Institutions — Relu/lous  I>(fsis.  101 

I'roni  Moses;  they  claimed  only  to  preserve  and  guard 
what  Moses  liad  left  (Deiit.  xxxiii.  4,  9  seq.)  He 
counted  as  their  ancestor  (xxxiii.  8;  Jutlges  xviii. 
30);  his  father-in-law  is  the  priest  of  Midian  at 
Mount  Sinai,  as  Jehovah  also  is  derived  in  a  cer- 
tain sense  from  the  older  deity  of  Sinai."'  When 
priests  and  prophets  are  mentioned  together,  ' '  the 
l)riests  take  precedence  of  the  prophets.  .  .  .  For 
this  reason,  that  they  take  their  stand  so  entirely 
on  the  tradition  and  depend  on  it,  their  claim  to 
have  Moses  for  their  father,  the  beginner  and  founder 
of  their  tradition,  is  in  itself  the  better  founded  of 
the  two."^  ''The  prophets  have  notoriously  no 
father  (1  Sam.  x.  12).  ...  We  have  thus  on  the 
one  side  the  tradition  of  a  class,  whicli  suffices  for 
the  occasions  of  ordinary  life;  and  on  the  other,  the 
inspiration  of  awakened  individuals,  stirred  up  by 
occasions  which  are  more  than  ordinary."^  The 
priestly  Torah  was  chiefly  confined  to  law  and 
morals,  though  the  priests  ''also  gave  ritual  in- 
struction {e.g.,  regarding  cleanness  and  unclean- 
ness)."  In  pre-exilian  antiquity,  however,  "the 
priests'  own  praxis  [at  the  altar]  never  constituted 
the  contents  of  the  Torah,"  which  "always  con- 
sisted of  instructions  to  the  laity.  "* 

That  the  word  Torah  is  applied  to  oral  instruc- 
tion, and  means  originally,  like  the  corresponding 
words  did  ax?}  and  doctrina,  simply  teaching,  need 
not  be  disputed.  It  seems  to  have  the  primary  idea 
oUhrowinfj  out  the  hand  in  the  gesture  of  guidance 

1  WeUhausen,  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  396.  -'  Ibid.,  p.  397. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  398.  4  Ibid.,  p.  59,  notO. 


102  Early  Beligiou  of  Israel. 

or  direction^  (which  would  perliaps  be  a  better  ren- 
dering), and  it  is  found  in  this  general  sense  in 
Prov.  i.  8,  iii.  1,  iv.  2:  ''The  instruction  of  thy 
father,  and  the  law  of  thy  mother;"  'Mny  law/' 
So  that  any  advice,  for  the  purpose  of  guidance  (for 
that  is  always  implied),  is  naturally  denoted  by  it;  and 
the  guidance  or  instruction  of  priests  or  prophets,  wiio 
were  the  religious  guides  or  instructors  of  the  people, 
is,  as  a  matter  of  course,  denoted  by  one  common  word, 
Torah.  Examples  of  the  use  of  the  word  to  express 
prophetic  teaching  are  found  in  Isaiah,  who  says: 
''Hear  the  word  of  the  Lord,  ye  rulers  of  Sodom; 
attend  to  the  law^  of  our  God,  ye  people  of  Gomorrah  '' 
(i.  10),  where  he  is  clearly  referring  to  his  own 
teaching;  and  even  if  we  suppose  a  reference  to  a 
written  law,  it  could  only  be  to  the  substance  and 
not  the  letter  of  it  that  he  directed  attention.  So 
when  he  says,  "  Bind  up  the  testimony,  seal  the  law 
among  my  disciples"  (viii.  16),  though  he  is  speak- 
ing of  something  olyective,  positive,  and  authorita- 
tive, it  is  most  natural  to  see  a  reference  to  what  he 
had  just  said  or  was  about  to  say.  Probal)ly  also  a 
general  sense  should  be  given  to  the  word  in  xxx. 
9,  "This  is  a  rebellious  people,  lying  children,  chil- 
dren that  will  not  hear  the  law  of  the  Lord."  Again 
we  have  mention  of  a  specific  priestlii  Torah  in  the 

1  There  seoms;  however,  no  reason  to  conclude  that  Torah,  from  a 
verb  "  to  throw,"  originally  referred  to  the  casting  down  of  some  kind 
of  dice,  as, ''..'/.,  Urim  and  Thummim,  to  determine  a  course  of  action, 
as  Wellliauson  (Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  ;}'.»4)  supposes.  There  Is  no  instance 
of  decision  hy  the  Urim  and  Thummim  being  called  Torah;  and  Well- 
hausen  himself  strenuously  maintains  an  oral  Torah  by  the  prophets, 
which  could  not  have  been  of  this  description.  Stade,  cf  course, 
traces  back  the  oracle  and  the  use  of  the  lot  to  fetishistic  and  animis- 
tic practices,  and  the  priest  to  the  soothsayer.  The  prophet  who,  at  a 
later  time,  contended  with  the  mechanical  i»riestcraft,  wis  also  a 
survival  of  the  primitive  "seer."— Geschichte.  vol.  i.  pi).  468-476. 


Autlwritative  Institutions — Religious  Basis.  103 

Blcssin.ii;   of    Moses,    one    of    the   oldest    pieces   of 
Hebrew  literature,  where   it  is   said  of  the  tribe  of 
Levi,  ^^They  shall  teach  Jacob  Thj- judgments,  and 
Israel  Thy  law:  they  shall  put  incense  l)eforc  Thee, 
and  whole  burnt  offerings  upon  Thine  altar  "  (Deut. 
xxxiii.  10).     Whatever  else  we  may  learn  from  the 
verse,  the  function  of  the  Levite  to  teach  is  clearly 
stated,  and  this  means  a  course  of  instruction  or 
acts  of  instruction  to  the  people.     That  a  distinction 
was  drawn  between  the  teaching  of  the  priests  and 
that  of  the  prophets,  we  may  also  conclude  from 
such  a  passage  as  Micah  iii.  11,  ^'The  heads  thereof 
judge  for  reward,  and  the  priests  thereof  teach  for 
hire,  and  the  prophets  divine  for  money."     A  simi- 
lar distinction,  showing  the  existence  of  a  priestly 
law,  is  found  in  Jeremiah,  ''The  law  shall  not  perish 
from  the  priest,  nor  counsel  from  the  wise,  nor  the 
word  from  the  prophet'"  (xviii.   18);    in  Lamenta- 
tions (ii.  9),  ^aier  king  and  her  princes  are  among 
the  nations  where  law  is  not;  yea,  her  prophets  find 
no  vision  from  the  Lord;"  and  in  Ezekiel,  ^^Thc 
law  shall  perish  from  the  priest,  and  counsel  from 
the  ancients"  (vii.  26);   ^Mier  priests  have  violated 
my  law,  and  profaned  mine  holy  things,"  &c.   (xxii. 
26).     In  other  passages,  again,  'Maw"  seems  to  be 
used  as  synonymous  with  ^'the  word  of  the  Lord," 
generally  to  express  the  whole  of  the  truth  of  i-evela- 
tion,  as  in   Isaiah  ii.  3,  v.  24,  xlii.  4;  IMicali  iv.  2; 
and  perhaps  Amos  ii.  4,  and  Hosea  viii.  1. 

While,  however,  these  distinctions  are  noticeable, 
the  inferences  drawn  from  them  are  not  at  all  warrant- 
able.    The  general  use  of  the  word  to  denote  divine 


104  Early  Belir/ion  of  Israel. 

revelation  of  truth  as  a  whole  implies  a  unity  in  that 
truth,  and  to  this  extent  it  is  true  that  even  the 
priestly  Torah  was  mainly,  or  we  should  rather  say, 
fundamentally,  of  a  moral  character;  although  we 
have  seen  in  the  last  chapter  good  reason  for  con- 
cluding that  the  prophets  knew  of  and  recognised  a 
ritual  law  as  well.  But  the  main  point  now  in  hand 
is  the  alleged  long  existence  of  oral  apart  from  and 
antecedent  to  written  Torah;  and  it  may  ho  main- 
tained, even  on  the  ground  of  the  passages  just 
cited,  that  the  inference  is  too  bold.  Let  us  make 
the  supposition  demanded  by  Wellhausen,  that  the 
priests  had  the  practice  of  giving  oral  decisions  as 
occasion  arose.  Still,  the  question  arises.  Did  the 
priests  decide  individual  cases  according  to  their 
individual  judgment?  and  if  not,  what  precisely 
were  the  guiding  principles  on  which  the}-  acted? 
It  is  hardly  conceivable  that  such  instruction,  if 
regularly  given,  up  to  a  comparatively  late  time, 
should  not  have  assumed,  in  practice,  some  concrete 
expression.  The  sentences  uttered  on  various  and 
recurring  occasions  must,  at  all  events,  have  been 
regarded  as  self-consistent,  and  of  concordant  tenor, 
before  they  could  be  spoken  of  under  this  compre- 
hensive term  of  Torah  or  instruction.  Then  we  have 
to  note  particularly  how  it  is  admitted  that  the  oral 
priestly  Torah,  which  is  thus  assumed,  always  claims 
for  itself,  not  only  high  antiquity,  but  Mosaic  sanc- 
tion. And,  since  even  the  priestly  Torah  is  repre- 
sented as  a  unity,  we  are  led  to  inquire  whether 
there  was  not  some  positive  guide  in  the  form  of 
typical  decisions  which  would  account  for  so  firm  a 


AHtJwritative  Institutions — Beligious  Basis.  105 

tradition,  and  give  some  kind  of  uniformity  to  the 
oral  sentences.  If  an  oral  teacliing  l)y  the  prophets 
did  not  prevent  them  fi-om  writing  down  tlieir  dis- 
courses, why  shoukl  tlie  priests,  who  had  a  teaching 
of  a  mucli  more  detailed  and  technical  kind  to  convey, 
not  have  had  a  written  Torali  for  their  guidance? 
Wcllhausen  feels  the  force  of  this,  for  he  says  it 
might  be  supposed  that,  even  if  Deuteronomy  and 
the  Lcvitical  Code  arc  late,  the  Jehovistic  legislation 
contained  in  the  book  of  the  Covenant  (Exod.  xx.- 
xxiii.,  xxxiv.)  ''might  be  regarded  as  the  document 
which  formed  the  starting-point  of  the  religious  his- 
tory of  Israel.  And  this  position  is  in  fact  generally 
claimed  for  it."  ^  It  belongs,  however,  he  says,  to 
a  period  much  later  tlian  the  active  oral  Torah  of 
the  priests,  and  he  reduces  the  Mosaic  elements  in  it 
to  the  barest  minimum,  scarcely  even  admitting  the 
Mosaic  origin  of  the  Decalogue. 

So  that  the  alleged  oral  Torah,  on  the  hypothesis, 
rests  upon  nothing  but  immemorial  custom,  each 
decision  as  it  was  given  constituting  a  Torah  or  law 
to  meet  the  case  in  hand.  That  this  was  the  way 
the  law  arose,  and  not  by  the  promulgation  of  a  set 
of  statutes,  is  said  to  be  indicated  by  a  chapter  in 
Exodus  (xviii.),  which  represents  Moses  himself  as 
sitting  hearing  cases  in  person,  and  deciding  each 
case  on  its  own  merits.  But  this  very  chapter,  so 
much  relied  upon,  seems  itself  to  di-aw  the  distinction 
between  legislation  and  administration.  Moses  is  re- 
presented as  discharging  both  functions;  but  the 
chapter  tells  how  he  was  advised  to  separate  them. 

1  Hist.  f)f  Israel,  p.  392. 


106  Early  Relir/ion  of  Israel. 

He  set  over  the  people  able  men,  who  were  to  judge 
the  people  in  small  matters,  reserving  the  "great 
matters  "  for  his  own  decision.  If  the  critics  are 
prepared  to  take  this  chapter  as  a  plain  historical 
statement,  then  we  get  a  positive  starting-point  for 
Mosaic  law,  and  that,  too,  of  a  pretty  comprehensive 
compass.  For  if  the  decisions  on  great  matters 
w^ere  given  by  Moses,  we  have  Mosaic  legislation, 
since  his  sentences  were  given  (presumably)  on  new 
cases  or  were  regulations  of  older  usages;  and  the 
small  matters  doubtless  were  controlled  l)y  precedents 
set  by  him.  There  is  no  reason  to  assume  that  such 
decisions  as  were  given  by  Moses  and  his  assessors 
remained  unwritten,  or  in  flux,  till  the  time  to  which 
the  book  of  the  Covenant  is  brought  down:  and  it  is 
to  be  noted  how  care  was  taken,  l)y  the  appointment 
of  capable  judges  and  by  the  teaching  of  the  "stat- 
utes," that  uniformity  and  consistency  should  be 
maintained.  Unless,  indeed,  there  was  some  guid- 
ing rule,  the  decisions  could  not  have  remained  con- 
sistent with  themselves,  and  could  never  have  as- 
sumed a  shape  in  which,  collectively,  they  would 
have  acquired  respect.  So  in  the  passage  already 
cited  from  the  Blessing  of  Moses,  where  it  is  de- 
scribed as  the  function  of  Levi  to  teach  the  people 
the  law,  there  is  presumal)ly  something  definite  and 
positive  to  be  taught;  just  as  the  second  half  of  the 
verse  speaks  of  the  otferings  which  they  had  to  pre- 
sent on  the  altar.  Wellhausen's  position,  so  confi- 
dently assumed,  that  the  'teaching  is  only  tliought 
of  as  the  action  of  the  teacher  " — if  the  teaching  is 
to  have  any  consistency  at  all — seems   to   me  only 


Authoritative  Institutions — Religious  Basis.  107 

conceivable  on  the  snpposition  of  a  guidance  of  the 
teacher,  an    inspiration,   in   fact,   of  a   kind    that  I 
fancy  Wellhausen  wouhl  be  the  last  to  admit.     It  is, 
besides,  flatly  contradicted  by  such  a   passage   as 
Hosea  iv.  6,  where  the  priest  is  reproached  (accord- 
ing to  the  common  interpretation  which  api)lies  the 
passage  to  the  priestly  class)  for  having  forgotten 
the  law  of  God,  as  indeed  by  all  the  passages  which 
reprove  the  priests  for  unfaithfuhiess.     If  everything 
taught  by  the  priest  was  Torah,  with  no  guiding 
norm,  such  reproofs  were  out  of  place.     Yet  it  is  to 
be  observed  that  the  prophets,  whatever  they  may 
say  about  the  priests  as  a  class,  always  speak  of 
their  Torah  as  a  thing  of  unquestioned   authority; 
and  they  were  not  the  men  to  speak  thus   of  the 
haphazard  decisions  on  ^'law  and  morals"  given  by 
a  class  which  was  too  often  both  lawless  and  immoral. 
Looking  at  it  from  any  possible  point  of  view,  in  the 
face  of  this  persistent  ascription  of  law  to  Moses, 
we   are   bound   to  assume   something  positive  and 
plain,  of  such  a  character  that  a  priesthood,  often 
ignorant  and  corrupt,  would  be  guided  to  give  forth 
sentences  that  prophetic  men  could  speak  of  Avith 
respect.     To  say  nothing  of  the  intricate  cases  of 
ceremonial   cleanness  and   defilement,    which  Well- 
hausen admits  constituted  an  element  of  the  Torah, 
there  were  also  'Maw  and  morals,"  as  he  tells  us, 
and  there  must  have  been  countless  cases  of  casuistry 
and  jurisprudence  calling  for  decision  at  the  mouth 
of  these  men,  from  whom  there  was  no  apjieal;  and 
the  whole,  when  collected,  forms,  we  are  to  suppose, 
the  legislation  on  these  sul)jects  Avhich  afterwards 


108  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

became  sj'Stcmatised  into  codes.  Moreover,  there 
were  the  matters  relating  to  the  riglit  performance 
of  priestly  functions  and  tlie  proper  observance  of 
sacred  ceremonies.  Wellhansen  indeed  says  posi- 
tively— although  on  no  positive  evidence — that  "the 
priests'  own  praxis  [at  the  altar]  never  constituted, 
in  pre-exilian  antiquity,  the  contents  of  the  Torah."  ^ 
Yet,  considering  the  punctilious  observance  that 
must  have  been  required  in  such  services,  and  the 
jealousy  of  a  priestly  class  to  maintain  forms  in 
their  rigour,  one  would  have  expected  that  just  in 
matters  of  this  kind  the  Torah,  whether  oral  or 
written,  would  be  most  definite.  Although  there 
was  no  need  for  the  priests  to  instruct  the  laity  in 
these  matters,  they  were  of  such  a  kind  as  would 
suggest  the  writing  of  them  down  in  longer  or  shorter 
collections  to  aid  the  memory  of  tlie  priests  them- 
selves, to  guide  the  partially  initiated,  and  to  secure 
accurate  preservation.  Many  of  tlie  laws  of  Levit- 
icus, in  fact,  to  an  ordinaiy  reader,  have  the  ap- 
pearance of  ^'memoranda"  which  might  be  ready  at 
liand  for  insti-uction  in  such  functions.  The  insist- 
ence on  the  authority  of  law,  com])ined  with  the 
reproof  of  the  priesthood,  can  thus  have  but  one 
meaning — viz.,  that  the  priests  were  in  possession 
of  an  ancient  authoritative  norm,  according  to 
wliich  even  ignorant  men  with  technical  training 
could  have  no  excuse  for  going  astray. 

The  priests'  function,  indeed,  was  to  give  instruc- 
tion to  the  people,  but  the  fact  that  they  did  so 
orally  is  no  proof  that  there  was  no  written  or  oh- 

'  Hist,  of  Israol.  p  I'O.  note. 


AutJioritativG  Institutions— Belicjious  Basis.  100 

jective  standard  hy  wliicli  tlicy  taught.  Nay,  we 
have  positive  proof  to  the  contrary.  Botli  in  Hag- 
gai  (ii.  11)  and  in  Mahichi  (ii.,.7),  by  whose  time 
certainly  the  hiw  was  codified  and  recognised,  there 
is  mention  of  tlie  oral  teaching  of  the  priests.  And 
if  oral  instruction  was  necessary  at  that  time,  though 
co-existent  witli  a  written  law,  we  are  not  bound  to 
conclude  when  Micah,  for  example,  speaks  of  the 
priests  of  his  time  teaching  for  hire  (Micah  iii.  11), 
that  they  drew  upon  a  tradition  which  was  entirely 
in  their  own  possession.  We  have  still  Christian 
pastors  and  teachers,  although  the  Scriptures  are  in 
every  one's  hands,  and  expounders  of  the  law  would 
be  more  necessary  in  ages  when  printing  was  un- 
known and  books  rare.  Indeed,  if  at  a  late  time, 
when  the  law  was  fully  codified,  there  was  need  of 
oral  exposition,  much  more  would  oral  instruction 
require  a  definite  l)asis  at  the  earlier  periods  when 
priests  and  people  were  so  tempted  to  fall  into  cor- 
ruption. Yet  during  even  the  worst  times  the 
prophets  have  no  doubt  of  the  purity  and  fixity  of 
the  priestly  Torah.  In  speaking  of  the  instruction 
of  the  priests,  they  regard  it  as  a  thing  superior  to 
and  binding  upon  the  class  and  the  people.  ''  Sen- 
tences," "judgments,"  '^statutes"  could  have  had 
no  coherency  apart  from  a  standard.  It  need  not 
of  course  be  concluded,  that  wherever  'Maw"  occurs 
there  is  a  reference  to  the  Pentateuch  as  a  whole,  or 
to  any  hook  whatever  in  the  modern  sense.  But  the 
alternative  is  not,  as  seems  to  be  hastily  assumed, 
tiiat  there  was  no  concrete  law  nor  written  code  of 
guidance — nothing,   in  short,  but  oral   law,  still   in 


110  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

process  of  being  delivered.  Such  a  supposition  is 
in  itself  hardly  conceivable,  considering  the  con- 
ditions of  the  nation  and  the  long  period  over  which 
this  oral  law  is  said  to  extend;  nor  is  it  supported 
by  an  unforced  exegesis  of  the  prophetic  utterances. 
(2.)  We  have  next  to  consider  the  assertion  that 
the  ceremonies  and  observances  of  the  religion  of 
Israel  were  not  matters  of  divine  authoritative  ap- 
pointment at  first,  but  were  the  growth  of  custom. 

"  In  tlie  early  clays,"  says  Wellbausen,  "  worship  arose  out  of 
tlie  midst  of  ordinary  life,  and  was  in  most  intimate  and  mani- 
fold connection  with  it.  A  sacrifice  was  a  meal— a  fact  showing 
how  remote  was  the  idea  of  antithesis  between  spiritual  earnest- 
ness and  secular  joyousness.  .  .  .  Year  after  year  the  return 
of  vintage,  corn-harvest,  and  sheep-shearing  brought  together 
the  members  of  the  household  to  eat  and  to  drink  in  the  pres- 
ence of  Jehovah ;  and  besides  tliese,  there  were  less  regularly 
recurring  events  which  were  celebrated  in  one  circle  after  an- 
other. .  .  .  The  occasion  arising  out  of  daily  life  is  thus 
inseparable  from  the  holy  action,  and  is  what  gives  it  meaning 
and  character ;  an  end  corresponding  to  the  situation  always 
underlies  it,"^ 

And  this  is  the  case  even  in  regard  to  the  more  dis- 
tinctively national  feasts: — 

"It  cannot  be  doubted,  generally  speaking  and  on  the  whole, 
that  not  only  in  the  Jehovistic  l)ut  also  in  the  Deuteronomic 
legislation  2  the  festivals  rest  ujmn  agriculture,  the  ])asis  at  once 
of  life  and  of  religion.  The  soil,  the  fruitful  soil,  is  the  ol)ject 
of  religion;  it  takes  the  })lace  alike  of  heaven  and  of  hell,  Je- 
hovah gives  the  land  and  its  jiroduce.  lb'  receives  the  best  of 
what  it  yields  as  an  expression  of   thankfulness,  the  tithes  in 


1  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  76. 

2  These  two  stapros  of  lejrlslatlon,  as  will  appear  in  the  sequel,  are 
placed  by  the  critical  .school,  the  former  in  tlie  earlier  writing'  period. 
and  the  latter  about  C21  B.C. 


Axthorifative  Jn^tltutloiis — Religious  Basis.  Ill 

recognition  of  liis  seigiiorial  right.  The  relation  between  Him- 
self and  His  people  first  arose  from  His  having  given  them  the 
land  in  fee;  it  continues  to  be  maintained,  inasmuch  as  good 
weather  and  fertility  come  from  Him.''' 

So  that  the  iiTcat  feasts^  wliich  were  tlie  prominent 
features  ot  the  worship,  are  ultimately  traceable  to 
the  Canaanitcs,  just  like  Naluism,  which  was  a  chief 
characteristic  of  the  religion.     For — 

"Agriculture  was  learned  by  tiie  Hebrews  from  the  Canaan- 
ites,  in  wliose  land  they  settled,  and  in  commingling  with  whom 
they,  (luring  the  period  of  the  Judges,  made  the  transition  to  a 
sedentary  life.  Before  the  metamorphosis  of  shepherds  into 
peasants  was  effected,  they  could  not  possibly  have  had  feasts 
which  related  to  agriculture.  It  would  have  been  strange  if  they 
had  not  taken  them  also  over  from  the  Canaanites.  The  latter 
owed  the  land  and  its  fruits  to  Baal,  and  for  this  they  paid  him 
the  due  tribute;  tlie  Israelites  stood  in  the  same  relation  to  Je- 
hova^i.  Materially  and  in  itself  the  act  was  neither  heathenish 
nor  Israelite;  its  character  either  way  was  determined  by  its 
destination.  There  was  therefore  nothing  against  a  transference 
of  the  feasts  from  Baal  to  Jehovah ;  on  the  contrary,  the  trans- 
ference was  a  i)rofession  of  faith  that  the  land  and  its  produce, 
and  thus  all  that  lay  at  the  foundations  of  the  national  existence, 
were  due  not  to  the  heathen  deity,  but  to  the  God  of  Israel."  ^ 

The  transition  from  this  simpler  and  more  natural- 
istic phase  of  worship  to  distinctively  religious  and 
non-secular  ol)servance  took  place,  according  to  the 
theory,  in  connection  with  and  in  consequence  of  the 
movement  for  centralisation  of  worship,  that  culmi- 
nated in  the  introduction  of  the  Deuteronomic  Code 
and  the  reform  in  the  time  of  Josiah.  The  view  is, 
that  up  to  that  time  the  worship  at  the  Banioth  or 

1  Hist,  of  larael,  p.  91  f.  2  ibid.,  p.  93  f. 


112  Early  Religioyi  of  Israel. 

high  places  u})  and  down  the  land  ^  was  the  regular 
and  normal  thing,  and  that  the  reform  of  Josiah 
abolished  these  local  sanctuaries,  and  conccnti-ated 
the  worship  at  the  one  sanctuary  at  Jerusalem,  thus 
severing  the  connection  between  the  old  joyous  re- 
ligious worship  and  the  daily  life  (p.  77).  ''  Deuter- 
onomy indeed  does  not  contemplate  such  a  result," 
and,  as  we  have  already  seen,  the  assertion  is  that 
still  in  the  Deuteronomic  legislation  the  festivals 
rest  upon  agriculture.  The  transition  was  only  fully 
effected  in  the  Priestly  Code  (which  dates  at  the 
earliest  from  the  time  of  Ezra). 

"Human  life  has  its  root  in  local  environment,  and  so  also 
had  the  ancient  cultus;  in  being  transplanted  from  its  natural 
soil  it  was  deprived  of  its  natural  nourishment.  A  separation 
between  it  and  the  daily  life  was  inevitable,  and  Deuteronomy 
itself  paved  the  way  for  this  result  by  permitting  profane  slaui!;]i- 
tering.  A  man  lived  in  Hebron,  but  sacrificed  in  Jerusalem ; 
life  and  worship  fell  apart.  The  consequences  which  lie  dormant 
in  the  Deuteronomic  law  are  fully  developed  in  the  Priestly 
Code"  (ibid.,  p.  77). 

And  then  as  to  the  distinctively  historical  refer- 
ences which  the  feasts  eventually  attained,  Well- 
hausen  says: — 

"It  is  in  Deuteronomy  that  one  detects  the  first  very  i^ercep- 
tible  traces  of  a  historical  dress  being  given  to  the  religion  and 
the  worship,  but  this  process  is  still  confined  within  modest 
limits.  The  historical  event  to  which  recurrence  is  always 
made  is  the  bringing  up  of  Israel  out  of  Egypt,  and  this  is  sig- 
nificant in  so  far  as  the  bringing  up  out  of  Egypt  coincides  with 
tlie  leading  into  Canaan,  that  is,  with  the  giving  of  the  land,  so 
that  the  historical  motive  again  resolves  itself  into  the  natural. 


J  See  before,  chap.  vlii.  p.  199  £f. 


Authoritative  InstittUions — Religious  Basis.  113 

In  tliis  way  it  cau  be  said  tliat  not  merely  tlie  Easter  festival 
but  all  festivals  are  dependent  upon  the  introduction  of  Israel 
into  Canaan,  and  this  is  what  we  actually  find  very  clearly  in 
the  prayer  (Deut.  xxvi.)  with  which  at  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles 
tlie  share  of  the  festal  gifts  falling  to  the  priest  is  ottered  to  the 
Deity"  (ibid.,  p.  92). 

It  is,  however,  as  has  been  said,  in  the  Priestly 
Code  that  the  development  is  fully  earricd  out,  and 

"  the  feasts  entirely  lose  their  peculiar  characteristics,  the  occa- 
sions by  which  they  are  inspired  and  distinguished:  by  the  mo- 
notonous sameness  of  the  unvarying  burnt-ottering  and  sin-otfer- 
ing  of  the  community  as  a  whole,  they  are  all  put  on  the  same 
even  level,  deprived  of  their  natural  spontaneity,  and  degraded 
into  mere  '  exercises  of  religion.'  Only  some  very  slight  traces 
continue  to  bear  witness  to,  we  might  rather  say  to  betray, 
what  was  the  point  from  which  the  development  started — 
namely,  the  rites  of  the  barley-sheaf,  the  loaves  of  bread,  and 
the  booths  (Levit.  xxiii.)  But  these  are  mere  rites,  petrified 
remains  of  the  old  custom  "  (ibid.,  p.  100). 

There  is  a  certain  coherence  and  roundness  about 
this  theory  that  make  it  very  specious;  but  unfortu- 
nately it  is  supported  by  little  positive  proof,  and  it 
fails,  besides,  to  give  an  adequate  account  of  well- 
established  facts. 

(a)  In  the  first  place,  no  one  can  ol)ject  to  the 
statement  that  '^  religious  worship  was  a  natural 
thing  in  Hebrew  antiquity;  it  was  the  blossom  of 
life,  the  heights  and  depths  of  which  it  was  its  busi- 
ness to  transfigure  and  glorify"  (p.  77).  But  just 
because  it  was  so,  we  should  have  expected  the  wor- 
ship to  pass  beyond  the  ordinary  level  of  the  soil  to 
those  ''  heights  and  <lepths  "  wliich  had  been  reached 
in  connection  with  the  early  national  history.     It  is 


114  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

simply  inconceivable  that  a  people  who  were  ever 
erecting  i)illars  and  offering  sacrifices  to  commemo- 
rate deliverances  or  celebrate  victories,  who  associ- 
ated ever  so  many  places  with  events  in  their  reli- 
gious history,  and  who  had,  from  the  time  of  Moses, 
passed  through  an  unparalleled  experience,  should 
still,  in  tlie  time  of  Ilosea  or  later,  have  practised 
merely  a  worship  whose  sole  motives  were  ^'  thresh- 
ing-floor and  wine-press,  corn  and  wine,"  and  ^^vo- 
ciferous joy,  merry  shoutings  its  expression  "  (p.  98). 
By  the  time  of  Ilosea,  Israel  had  lived  through  a 
very  considerable  part  of  its  national  and  political 
existence,  and  by  the  days  of  Josiah  that  life  had 
wellnigh  run  its  course.  Yet  A\'ellliauscn  would 
have  us  believe  that,  even  as  late  as  the  tiuic  of 
Josiah,  the  first  perceptible  trace  is  visible  of  a  his- 
torical reference  in  the  worship,  and  that,  in  the 
time  of  Ilosea, 

"  the  blos.siiii;- of  the  hind  is  the  end  of  religion,  and  tliat  (luite 
generally — alike  of  the  false  heathenish  and  of  the  true  Israelit- 
ish.  It  has  for  its  basis  no  historical  acts  of  salvation,  but  na- 
ture simply,  which,  however,  is  regarded  only  as  God's  domain 
and  as  man's  field  of  labour,  and  is  in  no  manner  deified.  The 
land  is  Jehovah's  house, ^  wherein  lie  lodges,  and  entertains  the 
nation ;  in  the  land  and  through  the  land  it  is  that  Israel  first 
becomes  the  people  of  Jehovah.  ...  In  accordance  with  this, 
worship  consists  simply  of  the  thanksgiving  due  for  the  sifts  of 
thr  soil,  the  vassala,i!;e  payable  to  the  superior  who  has  given 
the  land  and  its  fruits"  (p.  97). 

In  o])i)()sition  to  this  low  and  narrow  view  of  the 
conceptions  of  that  time,  we  can  i)oint  to  the  fact 

1  Hosea  vili.  1,  Ix.  15. 


Aiithoritative  Institutions — Religious  Basis.  115 

belbrc  considered,^  that  Hosea  dates  the  intimate 
union  between  Jaliaveh  and  His  people  from  the 
exodus  and  the  desert  life,  before  the  land  had  be- 
come '^Jehovah's  house."  In  the  very  passages 
which  Wellhausen  here  cites,  a  distinction  is  drawn 
between  the  Baalim  (unlawful  lovers)  and  Jahaveh 
(the  rightful  husband),  as  if  to  prove  that  it  was  no^ 
'  ^  through  the  land  that  Israel  first  became  the  peo- 
ple of  Jehovah."  N'o  dou])t  an  agricultural  people, 
if  they  would  offer  anything  to  their  God,  must  offer 
what  they  had, — the  fruits  of  the  land;  but  does  a 
Christian  who  gives  his  money  for  missions,  let  us 
say,  recognise  no  blessing  that  God  has  bestowed 
upon  him  but  silver  and  gold?  No  doubt  Hosea  and 
all  the  prophets,  early  and  late,  connect  the  fertility 
of  the  land  and  material  prosperity  with  the  blessing 
of  Jahaveh  and  the  fidelity  of  His  people,  as  many 
people  still  do.^  But  the  thing  to  be  noted  is  that 
Hosea,  appealing  to  the  consciousness  of  the  men  of 
his  time,  reminds  them  of  God's  doings  for  them  as 
a  people  in  the  early  days.  His  very  reproof,  in 
the  connection  appealed  to,  is  one  against  unfaith- 
fulness to  Him  who  had  betrothed  Israel  to  Himself 
before  they  came  into  Canaan;  and  ^'  I  refuse  to  be- 
lieve "  (to  adopt  one  of  Wellhausen's  modes  of  rea- 

1  See  chap.  v.  p.  110. 

-  Wellhausen's  own  opinion  is  frankly  stated  In  another  place.  In 
speaking  of  Samuel's  words,  "  God  forbid  that  I  should  cease  to  pray 
for  you  and  teach  you  the  good  way  "  (1  Sam.  xii.  23),  he  makes  the  com- 
ment :  "  They  do  not  need  to  trouble  themselves  about  means  forward- 
ing oft  the  attacks  of  their  enemies;  if  they  fast  and  pray,  ami  give  up 
their  sins,  Jehovah  hurls  back  the  foe  with  His  thundtn-  ami  liglitning. 
and  so  long  as  they  are  pious  He  will  not  allow  their  land  to  ho  invaded. 
All  the  expenses  are  then  naturally  superfluous  by  which  a  ptM)i>le  usu- 
ally safeguards  its  own  existence.  That  this  view  is  unhistorical  is 
self-evident.  ...  It  is  the  offspring  of  exilic  or  post-exilic  Juduism."— 
Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  255, 


116  Early  llelUjion  of  Israel. 

soiling ')  that  a  prophet  with  views  so  advanced  as 
Hosea  saw  no  more  in  worsliip  than  an  acknowledg- 
ment of  vassalage,  payable  to  the  superior  of  the 
land,  whoever  he  might  be.  Yet  not  only  in  the 
days  of  Ilosca,  but  two  centuries  later,  Wellhausen 
would  have  us  believe  that  Israel  was  in  this  condi- 
tion, for  'Mt  is  in  Deuteronomy  that  one  detects  the 
first  very  perceptible  traces^  of  a  liistorical  dress 
being  given  to  the  religion  and  the  worship."  That 
it  is,  however,  '' confined  within  modest  limits,"  he 
tries  to  prove  from  the  prayer  or  hymn  which  w^as 
uttered  at  the  presentation  of  fruits.  He  quotes  the 
prayer  at  length,  but  if  it  has  any  meaning  at  all, 
every  clause  of  it  contradicts  the  conclusion  built 
upon  it: — 

"A  wandering  Aramaean  was  my  fatlier;  and  he  went  down 
to  Egypt,  and  sojourned  there  a  few  men  strong,  and  became 
there  a  nation,  great,  mighty,  and  poi)ulous.  And  the  Egyp- 
tians evil  entreated  them,  and  oppressed  them,  and  laid  upon 
them  hard  bonda;[i;c.  Then  called  we  upon  Jehovah,  the  God  of 
our  fathers,  and  lie  heard  our  voice,  and  looked  on  our  afflic- 
tion, and  our  labour,  and  our  oi)pression.  And  Jeliovah  l)rouuht 
us  fortli  out  of  E,ii:yi)t  witli  a  miglity  haiul,  and  with  an  out- 
stretched arm,  and  with  great  terribleness,  and  with  signs,  and 
with  wonders;  and  brought  us  unto  this  jjlace,  aiid  gave  us 
this  land,  a  land  where  milk  and  honey  flow.  And  now,  he- 
hold,  I  have  brought  the  best  of  the  fruits  of  the  land,  ichich 
Thou,  0  Lord,  hast  given  ?«e"  (Deut.  xxvi.) 

Wellhausen  emphasises  the  words  put  in  italics,  and 
concludes  triumphantly  (p.  02),  ^^  Observe  here  how 
the  act  of  salvation  whereby  Isi-ael  was  founded  is- 

1  Hist,  of  Israo],  p.  51. 

-  Conipun^  Kucnon's  ftccount  of  "  nascent  monotheism  *'  jit  the  same 
period.    See  above,  chap.  xli.  p.  320. 


Authoritative  Institutions — Religious  Basis.  IIT 

sues  in  the  gift  of  a  fruitful  land."  We  all  knew 
that,  as  we  also  knew  that  the  only  gift  which  Israel 
could  offer  in  return  a\  as  the  i)roduee  of  the  land. 
But  what  of  all  the  other  blessings,  of  a  national 
and  religious  kind,  which  are  heaped  up,  clause  by 
clause,  as  if  the  suppliant  would  stir  up  his  soul,  and 
all  that  was  within  him,  to  forget  not  all  the  benelits 
bestowed  upon  the  nation?  ^'^ewent  down.  .  .  . 
The  Egyptians  evil  entreated  them.  .  .  .  He  heard 
our  voice  and  brought  us  forth."  If  the  author  of 
this  prayer  had  not  a  clear  recognition  of  the  unity 
of  the  nation  from  the  time  ol  the  patriarchs,  and  of 
the  national  blessings  from  first  to  last  which  they 
had  received,  then  language  has  no  nieaning.  It 
seems  to  me  that  this  little  basket  of  fruit,  like  Gid- 
eon's cake  of  barley-bread,  upsets  the  whole  array 
of  Wellhausen's  well-marshalled  argument  of  feasts 
taken  over  from  the  Canaanites,  and  tribute  offered 
indifferently  to  Baal  or  Jahaveh,  as  lord  paramount 
of  the  land,  not  to  speak  of 'Hhe  soil,  the  fruitful 
soil,  taking  the  place  alike  of  heaven  and  hell."  As 
to  the  references  to  agricultural  matters  in  even  the 
earliest  code,  the  l)ook  of  the  Covenant,  wiiich  are 
made  so  much  of  to  prove  that  this  legislation  could 
have  had  no  existence  till  Israel  came  into  Palestine, 
it  is  enough  to  say  that  it  is  taken  for  granted  that 
Moses  had  no  knowledge  of  agricultural  situations, 
and  that  he  had  no  idea  he  was  leading  his  people 
into  a  country  like  Palestine,  or  no  forethought  to 
give  them  guidance  for  their  ordinary  life  in  it;  for 
none  of  which  have  critical  writers  any  authority.' 

1  See  Note  XXIV. 


118  Early  ReUgloa  of  Israel. 

(b)  Again,  an  influence  altogether  exaggerated  is 
ascribed  to  the  centralisation  of  worship.  This,  in- 
deed, is  Wellhausen's  strong  point,  on  which  he  rests 
his  whole  theory.  '^  My  whole  position,"  he  says,  "is 
contained  in  my  first  chapter  [entitled,  The  Place  of 
Worship] ;  there  I  have  placed  in  a  clear  liglit  that 
which  is  of  such  importance  for  Israelite  history — 
namely,  the  part  taken  by  the  prophetical  party  in 
the  great  metamorphosis  of  the  worship,  which  by 
no  means  came  about  of  itself."^  Speaking  of  Hosea 
and  Amos,  he  says: — 

"The  language  held  by  these  men  was  one  hitherto  unheard 
of,  when  they  declared  that  Gilgal,  and  Bethel,  and  Beersheba, 
Jehovah's  favourite  seats,  were  an  abomination  to  Him;  that 
the  gifts  and  offerings  with  which  He  was  honoured  there  kin- 
dled His  wrath  instead  of  appeasing  it;  that  Israel  was  destined 
to  be  buried  under  the  ruins  of  His  temples,  where  protection 
and  refuge  were  soui^lit  (Amos  ix.)  .  .  .  That  the  holy  places 
should  be  abolished,  but  the  cultus  itself  remain  as  before  the 
main  concern  of  religion,  only  limited  to  a  single  locality,  was 
by  no  means  their  wish.  But  at  the  same  time,  in  point  of  fact, 
it  came  about  as  an  incidental  result  of  their  teaching  that  the 
hit;h  place  of  Jerusalem  ultimately  abolished  all  the  other 
Bamoth.  External  circumstances,  it  must  be  added,  contrib- 
uted most  essentially  towards  the  result "  (p.  23  f.) 

lie  then  goes  on  to  explain  (p.  24)  how  the  down- 
fall of  tiie  kingdom  of  Samaria  left  the  way  clear  for 
the  sanctuary  at  Jerusalem  to  assume  importance. 
Still,  although  Ilezekiah  is  said  to  have  even  in  his 
time  made  an  atteiupt  to  abolish  tlie  Hamoth  (p.  25), •^ 
it  was  not  till  about  a  century  after  the  destruction 
of  Samaria  that  men  ventured  "to  draw  the  practi- 

1  Hist,  ol  Israel,  p.  368.  2  see  below,  p.  450. 


AiUJioritat'ive  Institutions — Religious  Basis.  119 

cal  conclusion  from  the  belief  in  the  unique  character 
of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  "  (p.  2G).  This  was  done, 
not  ^'from  a  mere  desire  to  be  logical,  but  with  a 
view  to  further  reforms;"  and  so  prophets  and  priests 
combined  to  prepare  the  Code  of  Deuteronomy, 
which  was  officially  and  for  the  first  time  to  author- 
ise the  Jerusalem  Temple  as  the  place  of  worship. 

"  The  turning-point  in  the  history  of  the  sacrificial  system  was 
the  reformation  of  Josiah ;  what  we  find  in  the  Priestly  Code  is 
the  matured  result  of  that  event "  (p.  76). 

"  The  spiritualisatiou  of  the  worship  is  seen  in  the  Priestly 
Code  as  advancing  2^n7n  passu  with  its  centralisation.  It  re- 
ceives, so  to  speak,  an  abstract  religious  character ;  it  separates 
itself,  in  the  first  instance,  from  daily  life,  and  then  absorbs  the 
latter  by  becoming,  strictly  speaking,  its  proper  business" 
(p.  81). 

Of  the  alleged  influence  of  the  prophets  in  bring- 
ing about  centralisation  of  worship  and  codification 
of  the  law,  and  also  of  the  alleged  discrepancy  of  the 
three  Codes,  we  shall  have  to  speak  at  length  in  the 
sequel.  In  the  meantime,  attention  must  be  drawn 
to  this  effect  of  centralisation  on  the  spirit  and 
heartiness  of  the  worship.  Wellhausen's  idea  is, 
that  ^Ho  celebrate  the  vintage  festival  among  one's 
native  hills,  and  to  celebrate  it  at  Jerusalem,  were 
two  very  different  things;'*  that  '^it  was  not  the 
same  thing  to  appear  by  one's  self  at  home  before 
Jehovah,  and  to  lose  one's  self  in  a  large  congrega- 
tion at  the  common  seat  of  worship"  (p.  11);  and 
hence  that  the  old  joyousness  of  the  feasts  was  de- 
stroyed by  the  celeln^ation  at  the  Temple  at  Jerusa- 
lem.    Now,  admitting  for  a  moment  that  this  ceu- 


120  Early  Tielifjion  of  Israel. 

tralisation  took  place  in  the  way  lie  explains,  it  sim- 
ply is  not  the  fact  that  the  joyous  feature  disap- 
peared. Delitzsch  has  shown '  that  in  the  period  of 
the  second  Temple,  when  the  Priestly  Code  received 
paramount  attention,  and  when  the  national  life  was 
none  of  the  happiest,  even  the  most  solemn  feasts  of 
Israel  were  occasions  of  joyful  merrymaking,  and 
some  of  them  remarkably  so.  It  is  shallow  and  un- 
natural to  speak,  in  this  connection,  of  '^  the  antith- 
esis between  spiritual  earnestness  and  secular  jo}'- 
ousness"  (p.  76).  For  a  people,  as  Delitzsch  says, 
'^  is  and  remains  a  natural,  not  a  spiritual  quantity, 
and  therefore  celebrates  even  religious  festivals  with 
a  natural  outburst  of  feeling,  simple  mirth,  jubilant 
exultation.  It  lies  in  the  nature  of  a  people  as 
such."'-^  We  have  only  to  think  of  the  infectious  in- 
fluence of  a  great  throng  at  any  public  celebration, 
of  the  thorough  and  hearty  manner  in  which  all 
Orientals  enter  into  any  occasion  of  i)ub]ic  rejoicing, 
and  finally,  of  the  aid  to  enjoyment  furnished  by  the 
kindly  climate,  to  sec  that  Wellhausen's  position  is 
altogether  opposed  to  human  experience.  And  over 
against  this  sapiont  talk  of  the  individual  losing  him- 
self in  the  great  crowd,  and  the  depressing  inthience 
of  ''exercises  of  religion,"  I  would  simply  set  those 
psalms  that  speak  of  the  festive  throng,  and  exj^ress 
the  psalmist's  delight  in  the  j)ublic  celebrations  of 
religion.  If  these  psalms  be  early,  or  if  they  be 
late,  they  tell  (Mjiially  against,  the  theory:  for  they  ex- 

1  "  DanciriK  ami  tho  Crltlolsm  of  tho  Pontatf^urh  In  relation  to  one 
anotlior."  now  jmhlisliod  alonj:  with  otlier  papers  in  •  Iris,  Studies  In 
Colour  and  Tallin  about  Flow(>r8,'  1889. 

2  Iris,  p.  19C. 


Authoritative  Institutions — Relifjious  Basis.  121 

hibit  a  delight  not  only  in  nature,  but  in  the  God  of 
nature,  and  a])ovc  all,  in  the  service  of  a  God  who 
had,  in  the  nation's  history,  done  great  things  for 
them,  wliercof  tliej  were  glad. 

(c)  Once  more,  Wellhausen  fails  to  prove  that 
mere  nature  feasts  passed  over  in  the  time  he  men- 
tions into  the  religious  festivals  of  the  Deuteronomic 
or  Priestly  Codes.  That  the  three  great  cycle  feasts, 
Passover,  Pentecost,  and  Succoth,  fell  at  or  w^ere 
fixed  at  turning-points  in  the  natural  year,  and  that 
the  celebration  of  them  had  pointed  reference  to  the 
agricultural  seasons,  is  very  far  from  being  the  same 
as  to  say  that  they  grew  out  of  and  for  centuries 
remained  merely  agricultural  festivals.  One  might 
as  well  argue  that  all  the  festivals  of  the  ' '  Christian 
year"  have  their  sole  reference  to  the  natural 
seasons.  AVhat  Wellhausen  says  of  the  soil  being 
the  basis  of  religion,  has  this  much  of  truth  in  it, 
that  the  teachers  of  religion  always,  and  rightly, 
sought  to  impress  upon  the  people  the  material 
blessings  which  God  bestowed.  The  task,  however, 
before  him  is  to  explain  how  the  historical  references 
in  these  feasts  came  in,  as  they  did  come  in  some- 
how, sooner  or  later.  Having  described,  as  an  in- 
stance of  what  he  is  pleased  to  call  ^Hhe  manner  of 
the  older  worship  as  we  are  made  acquainted  with 
it  in  IIos.  ii.,  ix.,  and  elsewhere,"^  the  celel)ration 
of  the  vintage  festival  by  the  Canaanite  population 
of  Shechem  (not  very  high  authorities  on  such  mat- 
ters, we  should  say);  and  having  referred  to  the 
yearly  festival  in  the  vineyards   at  Shiloh,  as  men- 

1  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  107. 


122  Early  Beligion  of  Israel. 

tioned  in  tlic  book  of  Judges/ — lio  looks  about  for 
proof  tliat  tlicse  or  suchlike  are  the  three  cycle 
feasts  prescribed  in  the  book  of  the  Covenant  or 
Jehovistic  legislation.  And  what  does  he  find? 
^' Amos  and  Hosea,  presupposing  as  they  do  a  splen- 
did cultus  and  great  sanctuaries,  doubtless  also  knew 
of  a  variety  of  festivals,  but  they  have  no  occasion  to 
mention  any  one  by  name  "  (p.  95).  This  is  extra- 
ordinary meekness  in  one  who  is  in  the  constant 
habit  of  declaring,  when  a  prophet  does  not  men- 
tion a  thing,  that  he  knew  nothing  at  all  about  it  be- 
cause it  had  no  existence.  But  stay!  ''More  de- 
finite notices  occur  in  Isaiah.  The  threatening  that 
within  a  year's  time  the  Ass3Tians  will  be  in  the  land 
is  thus  (xxix.  1)  given:  'Add  ye  year  to  year,  let 
the  feasts  come  round;  yet  I  will  distress  Jerusalem,' 
and  at  the  close  of  the  same  discourse  the  prophet 
expresses  himself  as  follows  (xxxii.  9  seq.)\  '  Rise  up, 
ye  women  that  are  at  ease;  hear  my  voice,  ye  care- 
less daughters;  give  ear  unto  my  speech.  Days 
upon  a  year  shall  ye  be  troubled,  ye  careless  women; 
for  the  vintage  shall  fail,  the  ingathering  shall  not 
come.  Ye  shall  smite  upon  the  breasts,  for  the 
pleasant  fields,  for  the  fruitful  vine.'"  Putting 
these  two  passages  together,  he  ])ictures  Isaiah, 
after  the  universal  custom  of  the  prophets,  coming 
forward  at  a  great  popular  autumn  festival,  in  which 
the  women  also  took  an  active  part.  But  this 
autumn  festival,  he  argues,  takes  ])lacc  at  the  change 
of  the  year,  as  may  be  inferred  from  the  phrase  "let 
the  feasts  come  round,"  and  ''closes  a  cycle  of  festi- 

1  Hist,  of  Isniol,  p.  94;  Judges  ix.  27.  xxi.  10  f. 


Authoritative  Institutions — Religious  Basis.  123 

vals  here  for  the  first  time  indicated  "  (p.  95).  It 
gives  me  pleasure  to  say  that  I  quite  agree  with  the 
sentence  that  follows:  "The  preceding  survey,  it 
must  be  admitted,  scarcely  seems  fully  to  establish 
the  alleged  agreement  between  the  Jehovistic  law 
and  the  older  praxis."  ^' Names,"  he  goes  on  to  re- 
mark, "are  nowhere  to  be  found,  and  in  point  of 
fact  it  is  only  the  autumn  festival  that  is  well  at- 
tested, and  this,  it  would  appear,  as  the  only  festi- 
val, as  the  feast.  And  doubtless  it  was  also  the  old- 
est and  most  important  of  the  harvest  festivals,  as  it 
never  ceased  to  be  the  concluding  solemnity  of  the 
year."  All  that  needs  to  be  said  on  this  part  of  the 
argument  is  this:  Isaiah's  reference  to  feasts  "  com- 
ing round  "  may  quite  as  suitably  apply  to  feasts 
which  have  a  religious  and  historical  meaning  as  to 
purely  agricultural  celebrations,  and  his  references 
in  the  close  of  his  address,  if  they  are  not  indeed 
quite  general,  may  equally  apply  to  the  feasts  as 
they  are  prescribed  in  the  law.  If  on  these  slight 
notices  the  modern  critics  are  satisfied  to  base  the 
proof  of  a  set  cycle  of  agricultural  feasts,  we  ought 
to  hear  less  of  the  argument  from  silence  as  conclu- 
sive of  the  non-existence  of  the  Mosaic  feasts:  ])ut  of 
this  again.  ^  Attention  should  l)c  given  to  the  diffi- 
culty experienced  by  Wellhausen  in  accounting  for  the 
historical  reference  which  undoubtedly  is  attached 
to  the  feasts  in  the  Codes,  even  in  the  earliest.^ 

"Accordiiiij:  as  stress  is  laid  ni)OM   tlio  common  character  of 
the  festival  and  uniformity  in   its  ol)servance,  in   precisely  the 


See  below,  p.  401.  2  see  Exod.  xxlil.  15. 


124  Earhj  Belirjion  of  Israel. 

Liame  (le*;ree  does  it  become  separated  from  the  roots  from 
which  it  sprang,  and  grow  more  and  more  abstract.  That  it  is 
then  very  ready  to  assume  a  liistorical  meaning  may  partly  also 
be  attributed  to  the  circumstance  tluit  history  is  not,  like  harvest, 
a  personal  experience  of  individual  households,  but  rather  an  ex- 
perience of  the  nation  as  a  whole.  One  does  not  fail  to  observe, 
of  course,  that  the  festivals — which  always  to  a  certain  degree 
have  a  centralising  tendency — have  in  themselrefi  a  disposition 
to  become  removed  from  the  particular  motives  of  their  institu- 
tion, but  in  no  part  of  the  legislation  has  this  gone  so  far  as  in 
the  Priestly  Code"  (p.  10.-]). 

•'For  after  they  have  lost  their  original  contents  and  degene- 
rated into  mere  i)rescribed  religious  forms,  there  is  nothing  to 
l)revent  the  relilling  of  the  empty  bottles  in  any  way  accordant 
with  the  tastes  of  the  period  "  (i).  102). 

And  so  in  a  word — 

"One  can  characterise  the  entire  Priestly  Code  as  the  wilder- 
ness legislation,  inasmuch  as  it  a])stracts  from  the  natural 
conditions  and  motives  of  the  actual  life  of  the  people  in  the 
land  of  Canaan,  and  rears  the  hierocracy  on  the  tabula  rasa  of 
the  wilderness,  the  negation  of  nature,  by  means  of  the  bald 
statutes  of  arbitrary  absolutism  "  (p.  104). 

A  great  deal  of  this  mode  of  representing  the 
Priestly  Code  arises  from  ignoring  or  misstating  tlie 
character  of  that  Code,  which  is  brief,  terse,  tech- 
nical, a  manual  for  ceremonial  to  the  priests,  rather 
than  a  book  of  exhortation  and  guidance  to  the 
people  like  Deuteronomy.  For  the  rest,  Wellhatisen 
fails  entirely  to  show  any  occasion  for  this  late  turning 
of  the  reference  from  agriculture  to  national  history. 
These  ceremonies,  we  are  to  suppose,  went  on  from 
year  to  year  with  their  accompaniments  of  presenta- 
tion of  fruits  and  so  forth.  That  is  to  say,  they 
were  never  ''separated  from  the  roots  from  which 


Authoritative  Institutions — Religious  Basis,  125 

they  sprang."  The  mere  fact  of  centralisation 
might  add  to  the  richness  of  the  ceremonies,  as  is 
ahyays  the  case;  but  this,  one  woukl  suppose, 
would  prevent  tliem  from  becoming  '■ '  more  and 
more  abstract."  The  people  were  as  much  an 
agricultural  people  after  Josiah's  time  as  before; 
probably  they  were  much  less  of  a  niercantile  people 
than  they  had  been  at  an  earlier  period  of  the 
monarchy.  If  the  great  events  of  the  exodus,  the 
conquest  of  Canaan,  and  in  general  the  experiences 
which  had  made  them  a  nation,  did  not  impress  the 
national  consciousness  when  it  was  plastic  and  fresh, 
are  we  to  suppose  that,  for  the  first  time  when 
foreign  nations  were  about  to  sweep  them  away, 
they  began  to  read  into  their  worship  and  cere- 
monial a  meaning  which  had  not  occurred  to  them 
for  centuries?  If  at  a  time  when  Hosea  and  Amos 
were  reminding  them  of  the  days  of  the  youth  of  the 
nation,  and  thus  appealing  to  the  strongest  motives 
that  could  influence  them — if  at  such  a  time  there 
were  many  feasts  and  imposing  rituals,  are  we  to 
suppose  that  not  once  in  all  these  was  there  a  com- 
memoration of  the  founding  of  the  nation,  and  of  the 
achievement  of  the  nation's  success?  No  doubt  the 
feasts,  at  such  times  as  those  of  Hosea  and  Amos, 
would  be  overlaid  with  superstitious  observances. 
But  that  is  not  the  point.  Because  the  modern 
Greeks  at  Jerusalem  make  Easter  a  time  of  riot, 
are  we  to  conclude  that  Easter  does  not  com- 
memorate the  resurrection?  What  country  has  not, 
at  one  time  or  another,  thus  buried  its  holiest 
associations  under  carnal  and  sensuous  forms?    All 


12G  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

this  does  not  suffice  to  show  that  the  better  meaning 
does  not  underlie  the  institution;  much  less  that  a 
better  meaning  is  merely  an  afterthought,  read  into 
an  empty  form,  just  because  it  is  empty.  Fonns 
are  never  empty  in  the  strict  sense.  They  are  full 
of  something.  The  corrupt  must  be  purged  o«t 
before  the  clean  can  be  poured  in;  and  we  can  fiml 
no  time  in  Israel's  history  at  which  a  tabula  rasa 
was  formed,  and  history  made  out  of  nothing. 
Even  the  critical  school  has  to  admit,  as  we  shall 
see,  that  the  Priestly  Code  was  a  gathering  up  of 
the  practice  which  had  prevailed  before  the  exile; 
and  without  coming  so  far  do^vn,  we  see  enough 
already  in  the  Deuteronomic  Code  to  convince  us 
that  the  historical  reference  was  full  and  clear  when 
that  Code  was  drawn  up.  Nay,  even  in  the 
Jehovistic  book  of  the  Covenant,  the  Passover  is 
made  distinctly  to  refer  to  the  coming  out  of  Egypt. 
Wcllhausen's  difficulties  over  the  Passover  may 
indeed  be  pointed  to  as  evidence  of  the  weakness  of 
his  theory  at  its  foundation.  The  following  is  his 
account  of  the  matter:  As  the  Israelites  Avere  a 
pastoral  people  before  they  became  agriculturists, 
their  oldest  feasts  must  have  had  a  pastoral  basis 
(p.  92  f.)  Tiie  Passover  is  a  remnant  of  these,  and 
is,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  tlie  oldest  of  all  the 
feasts,  its  primary  form  being  the  ollering  of  the 
firstlings;  and  so,  with  perfect  accuracy,  it  is  postu- 
lated as  the  occasion  of  the  exodus  (n.  87).  The 
exodus  was  not  the  occasion  of  tlie  festival,  but  the 
festival  the  occasion,  if  only  a  pretended  one,  of  the 
exodus  (p.  88).     ''  Let  my  people  go,  that  they  may 


Authoritative  Institutions — licliglous  Basis.  127 

keep  a  feast  unto  me  in  the  wilderness,  with  sacri- 
fices and  cattle  and  sheep; " — this  from  the  first  is 
the  demand  made  upon  Pharaoh.  And  because 
Pharaoh  refuses  to  allow  the  Hebrews  to  offer  to 
their  God  the  firstlings  of  cattle  that  are  His 
due,  Jehovah  seizes  from  him  the  first-born  of 
men.  '^  But  it  is  curious,"  says  Wellhausen  (p.  93), 
''  to  notice  how  little  prominence  is  afterwards  given 
to  this  festival,  which,  from  the  nature  of  the  case, 
is  the  oldest  of  all.  It  cannot  have  been  known  at 
all  to  the  book  of  the  Covenant,  for  there  (Exod. 
xxii.  29,  30)  the  command  is  to  leave  the  firstling 
seven  days  with  its  dam,  and  on  the  eighth  day  to 
give  it  to  Jehovah."  There  are,  however,  two 
names  given  to  this  feast,  Mazzotli  (or  unleavened 
bread),  and  Pesach  (passover).  The  latter  indicates 
the  original  character  of  the  feast,  as  a  sacrifice  of 
the  first-born;  but  the  otlier  name  throws  light  upon 
the  manner  in  which  this  came  into  the  cycle  of  the 
agricultural  feasts.  Mazzoth,  or  unleavened  bread, 
denotes  the  hastily  made  cake  of  the  first  corn, 
which  was  eaten  at  the  time  the  sickle  was  first  put 
in  to  commence  the  harvest,  when  a  sheaf  was  pre- 
sented to  the  Lord.  This  happened  at  the  season  of 
the  year  when  tradition  fixed  the  exodus,  the  spring; 
and  in  the  account  of  the  exodus  it  is  mentioned 
(Exod.  xii.  34)  that  in  their  haste  to  leave  Egypt 
the  Israelites  ''took  their  dough  before  it  was 
leavened;"  and  these  two  circumstances  assisted  in 
the  transition  of  the  conception  to  a  commemorative 
feast.  '^  Probably,"  says  Wellhausen,  'through 
the  predominance  gained  by  agriculture,   and  the 


128  Early  Religion  0/  Israel. 

feasts  founded  on  it,  the  Passover  [in  its  original 
sense]  fell  into  disuse  in  many  parts  of  Israel,  and 
kept  its  ground  only  in  districts  where  the  pastoral 
and  wilderness  life  still  retained  its  importance" 
(p.  93).  ^'The  elaboration  of  the  historical  motive 
of  the  Passover,"  however,  we  are  told,  ''is  not 
earlier  than  Deuteronomy,  altliough  perhaps  a  cer- 
tain inclination  to  that  way  of  explaining  it  appears 
before  then,  just  as  in  the  case  of  the  Mazzoth 
(Exod.  xii.  34).  What  has  led  to  it  is  evidently 
the  coincidence  of  the  spring  festival  with  the 
exodus,  already  accepted  by  the  older  tradition,  the 
relation  of  cause  and  effect  having  become  inverted 
in  course  of  time  "  (p.  88), 

A  very  ingenious  piece  of  patch-work!  But  the 
facts  are  these:  The  book  of  the  Covenant  (Exod. 
xxiii.  15,  16),  and  the  related  Law  of  the  Two  Tables 
(Exod.  xxxiv.  18  f.),  which  are  said  by  critics  to  be 
older  by  at  least  two  centuries  than  the  Code  of 
Deuteronomy,  call  the  feast  Mazzoth  or  unleavened 
bread,  and  in  both  cases  give  the  reason  for  keeping 
the  feast  that  in  tlie  month  Abid  the  people  came 
out  of  Egypt.  The  Code  of  Deuteronomy,  according 
to  AVellhausen's  own  authority  (p.  87),  is  the  first 
that  mentions  PesacJi,  but  it  has  tlie  name  Mazzoth 
as  well;  and  the  elaboration  of  the  historical  motive, 
he  has  just  told  us,  is  not  earlier  tlian  Deuteronomy. 
'*  The  only  view,"  he  says,  ''  sanctioned  by  the  nature 
of  the  case  is,  that  the  Israelite  custom  of  offering 
the  firstlings  gave  rise  to  the  narrative  of  the  slay- 
ing of  the  first-born  of  Egypt:  unless  the  custom  be 
presupposed,  the  story  is  inexplicable,  and  the  pe- 


Authoritative  Institutions — Religious  Basis,   1-^ 

ciiliar  selection  of  its  victims  by  tlic  plague  is  left 
without  a  motive  "  (p.  88).  As  to  tliis  conclusion, 
if  critics  are  to  (Ictermine  historical  questions  by  the 
nature  of  the  case  as  they  judge  it,  and  to  assume  a 
liberty  of  putting  etfects  for  causes  when  it  suits 
them,  we  may  get  startling  '' scientific  results,"  but 
we  make  no  solid  progress.  What  requires  explana- 
tion is  the  fact  that  Mazzoth  is  mentioned  as  a  feast 
commemorative  of  the  exodus,  in  what  is  pronounced 
the  earliest  legislation,  ami  no  reference  made  there- 
in to  the  offering  of  the  firstlings;  and  that  only  two 
centuries  later  the  name  which  is  supposed  to  point 
to  the  original  character  of  the  feast  is  for  the  first 
time  employed,  and  yet  the  description  of  the  feast 
agrees  (only  being  fuller)  with  the  older.  -  The  truth 
is,  as  any  fair-minded  person  may  see,  this  laborious 
attempt  to  foist  in  the  historical  reference  at  a  late 
date  breaks  down  just  because  the  historical  reference 
was  present  from  the  first.  The  fundauiental  fallacy  of 
this  whole  argument  is  the  assumption  that  '^  in  the 
land  and  through  the  land  it  is  that  Israel  first  becomes 
the  people  of  Jehovah."  For  this  assertion  there  is 
not  a  scrap  of  evidence,  whereas  the  concurrent 
testimony  of  all  Israelite  antiquity  is,  that  it  was 
because  He  had  chosen  his  people,  and  after  he  had 
signalised  His  choice,  that  He  brought  them  into  a 
goodly  land.  And  the  conclusion  of  the  matter  is, 
that  as  there  was  a  formal  system  of  law  at  a  much 
earlier  time  than  the  critical  theory  postulates,  so 
also  there  was  an  earlier  reference  in  their  worship 
and  ceremonial  to  the  events  in  the  nation's  religious 
history  which  marked  them  out  as  Jahaveh's  people. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

THE  THREE  CODES. 

The  legislative  elements  in  the  Pentateuch  a  subject  of  difficulty 
— The  traditional  theory  makes  it  unnecessarily  difficult, 
while  the  critical  theory  raises  greater  difficulties — The 
three  positions  of  the  modern  theory  as  to  the  Codes:  I. 
there  are  three  Codes;  II.  far  apart  in  time;  and  IIL 
inconsistent  with  one  another — .I5  to  I.  there  is  nothing 
inconsistent  with  Biblical  theory  or  nature  of  the  case  in 
variation  or  ^progression  of  Codes — Law  is  modified  even 
after  it  is  codified — 11.  But  the  critical  iwsition  is  that  the 
Codes  belong  to  times  far  apart — How  this  conclusion  is 
reached — The  evidence  of  dates  is  inferential — Argument 
examined — The  book  of  the  Covenant— No  satisfactory 
account  given  of  introduction  of  this  Code  at  the  alleged 
time,  and  ichy  codification,  once  begun,  should  have  stopped 
for  two  centuries — Wliat  happened  in  the  interv(ds  of  the 
Codes? — Wellhausen's  position,  legem  non  habentes,  &c. 
— The  tico  i)oints  involved  in  this  x)os^tlion:  (1)  argument 
from  silence  and  non-observance;  (2)  praxis  and  pro- 
gramme— ///.  Alleged  inconsistency  of  the  Codes,  partic- 
idarly  as  to  the  centralisation  of  worship — T7ie  argument 
examined. 

The  legislative  parts  of  the  books  of  the  Pentatcurli, 
in  their  form  and  setting  no  less  than  in  their  con- 
tents, present  many  (liiricnltios.  The  laws  are  fcmnd, 
not  colleeted  together  and  s}  stematised,  but  se.attered 


The  Three  Codes.  131 

over  several  books.     Not  ouly  is  there  a  repetition 
in  one  collection  of  what  may  be  found  in  another, 
but  the  same  laws  may  be  repeated  with  little  or  no 
alteration  in  the  same  collection/    And  then  there 
are  discrepancies  in  the  regulations  found  in  difi'erent 
places  on  the  same  subject;  and  laws  relating  to 
subjects  apparently  the  most  diverse  are  brought  into 
strange  juxtaposition,  as  also  are  laws  bearing  upon 
what  seem  very  different  conditions  of  life  and  states 
of  society.     We  should  have  expected  a  writer,  if 
he  were  the  author  of  all  the  legislation,  to  work 
more   systematically:  whether    he    was    early    and 
looked  forward  to  the  future,  or  late  and  looked  back 
upon  the  past,  we  should  have  expected   a  better 
arrangement  of  details,    a  more  completed   whole. 
On  what  is  called  the  traditional  theory,  that  Moses 
not  only  gave  tl  e  law,  but  wrote  substantially  the 
books  in  which  it  is  contained,  the  literary  difficulties 
are  very  great  indeed,  and  the  expedients  that  have 
been  resorted  to  in  order  to  remove  them  are  very 
often  artificial  and  hazardous.     The  modern  critical 
theory,   on  the  other  hand,  starting   with   a    good 
motive,  gets  involved  in  what  I  consider  a  vicious 
method,  and  ends  by  raising  greater  difficulties  than 
those  which  it  attempts  to  remove.     Advocates  of 
the  traditional  theory  burden  themselves  with    an 
unnecessary  difficulty  by  assuming  that  the  books  of 
the  Pentateuch  were  written  by  Moses;  for  the  ])ooks 
do  not  say   so   of  themselves,  and  even   the   older 
Jewish   tradition   that   Ezra   ^^  restored"  the   law, 

1  Compare  Num.  xv.  1-16  with  Levit.  i.-vii. ;     Num.  v.  5-10  with  Levit. 
V.  5  ff.,  vi.  5  n. ;  Num.  xv.  22-23  with  Levit.  Iv.  la  £f. 


132  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

pointed  to  redaction  as  a  probable  solution  of  many 
of  the  difficulties.  Too  much  praise  cannot  be  given 
to  those  who  have  laboured  in  the  field  of  Pentateuch 
criticism,  for  the  minute  examination  they  have  made 
of  details,  in  the  endeavour  to  sift  and  distinguish 
the  sources;  and  as  a  literary  feat,  the  labour  may 
be  pronounced  on  the  whole  successful,  althougli  it 
will  hardly  be  asserted  that  the  last  word  on  the 
subject  has  yet  been  spoken.^  At  the  same  time,  it 
seems  to  me  that  the  difficulties  of  the  critical  theory 
increase  at  every  step  ^^'hen  the  attempt  is  made  to 
determine  the  origin  of  the  Codes,  and  their  relation 
to  one  another  and  to  the  history.  The  three  lead- 
ing positions  of  the  modern  critical  theory  are:  I. 
That  there  are  three  distinct  Codes  of  Law.  II. 
That  these  belong  to  three  different  periods  far 
separate.  III.  That  on  essential  points  the  Codes 
differ.  How  these  positions  are  established,  and 
what  consequences  are  drawn  from  them,  will  be 
seen  as  we  proceed. 

I.  By  a  process  of  critical  analysis,  into  which 
we  do  not  here  enter  at  length,  the  legislation  con- 
tained in  the  Pentateuch  is  divided  into  various 
Codes,  distinguished  by  certain  literary  and  material 
characteristics.  (1.)  The  Code  contained  in  Deute- 
ronomy stands  by  itself,  marked  by  a  certain  horta- 
tory tone,  and  l)y  the  absence  of  the  minute  ritual 
prescriptions  and  distinctions  found  particularly  in  the 
book  of  Leviticus.  (2.)  There  is  also  distinguished 
a  book  of  the  Covenant  attached  to  the  Jehovistic 
historical  portion  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  embraced 

'  See  Note  XXVI. 


The  Three  Codes.  133 

in  Exotl.  xx.-xxiii.  ;  closely  related  to  which,  and 
usually  classed  along  with  it,  is  chap,  xxxiv.  of  the 
same  book,  sometimes  called  tlie  Law  of  the  Two 
Tables.  (3.)  Then,  in  the  remaining  parts  of 
Exodus,  in  the  whole  of  Leviticus, .  and  in  some 
chapters  of  Numbers,  are  found  a  numl)er  of  laws, 
moral,  civil,  and  ceremonial,  which  are  all  classed 
togetlier  as  the  Levitical  Code  or  Priestly  Code,  so 
named  I'rom  the  prevalence  of  the  ritual  element  in 
its  contents.  A  portion  of  this  Code,  contained  in 
Levit.  xvii.-xxvi.,  is  sometimes  spoken  of  as  a  code 
or  collection  by  itself,  the  ^ Maw  of  holiness,"  and 
su})posed  to  have  a  special  history  of  its  own. 
Moreover,  there  is  a  collection  of  regulations, 
mostly  ritual,  found  in  P^zekiel  (from  chap.  xl. 
onwards)  which  it  is  customary  to  take  into  account 
in  the  critical  history  of  the  Codes.  So  far  as  the 
legislation  of  the  Pentateuch,  however,  is  concerned, 
we  have  to  deal  with  the  three  collections — tlie 
Jehovistic  book  of  the  Covenant  (witli  related  chap- 
ter), the  Deuteronomic  Code,  and  the  Priestly  Code; 
and  it  is  maintained  that  they  are  to  be  historically 
arranged  in  the  order  in  which  they  have  just  been 
mentioned. 

So  far  there  is  nothing  in  the  modern  tlieory 
essentially  incompatible  with  the  Biblical  account 
of  the  matter,  except  the  order  of  the  Codes.  The 
Biblical  order  is:  Book  of  the  Covenant,  Levitical 
Code,  Deuteronomic  Code;  but  they  are  ascril)ed  to 
different  times,  although  these  periods  all  fall  within 
the  lifetime  of  Moses.  There  is  nothing  unreason- 
able in  itself  in  the  supposition  that  laws  or  codes 


134  Early  Relujion  of  Israel. 

of  laws  were  promulgated  at  ditlcrcnt  times;  and 
difl'ereiit  sets  of  laws,  so  given,  fur  special  purposes 
or  on  special  occasions,  might  run  severally  their 
respective  literary  courses.  Nor  is  it  difficult  to 
conceive  how  such  several  collections  might  overlap 
one  another,  and  after  a  time  have  certain  features 
of  inconsistency.  The  law-books  themselves  give  us 
to  understand  that,  as  the  situation  of  the  people 
changed,  the  law^  had  a  varying  reference,  and  even 
that  a  law  on  a  certain  subject  might  be  abrogated 
or  modified  to  suit  altered  circumstances.  So  that, 
even  in  the  Biblical  theory,  not  to  speak  of  what  is 
known  of  the  course  of  law  generally,  it  is  possible 
for  law  to  undergo  modification  even  after  it  is 
codified.  We  find,  for  example,  within  the  compass 
of  one  book,  a  modification  in  the  age  at  which  the 
Levites  were  to  serve  at  the  sanctuary.'  Music  of 
an  elaborate  kind,  we  know,  was  introduced  into  the 
Temi)le  service,  though  it  is  not  prescribed,  as  we 
should  expect  to  find  it,  in  the  Levitical  Code. 
Again,  the  law  of  inheritance,  contained  in  Xum. 
xxvii.,  is  modified  within  the  Levitical  Code  itself 
])y  Num.  xxxvi. ;  and  it  is  notorious  that  by  New 
Testament  times  and  in  modern  Jewish  usage  there 
are  modifications  in  the  manner  of  celebrating  the 
Passover,  particularly  in  the  use  of  wine  and  certain 
hymns  that  constitute  very  considerable  variations 
from  the  ceremonial  prescribed  in  the  law.  Nay, 
Ezra,  to  whom,  on  the  modern  theory,  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  Priestly  Code  is  ascril)ed,  makes  a  uK^di- 
fication  on  the  amount  of  the  tax  payal)le  for  the 

1  Num.  iv.  3.  vUl.  24 ;  comp.  ulso  1  Chron.  xxUi.  3,  27 ;  2  Chron.  xxxl.  17. 


The  Three  Codes.  135 

expenses  of  the  Temple/  fixing  it  at  a  third  of  a 
shekel,  whereas  the  code  which  he  is  said  to  have 
drawn  up  fixes  it  at  half  a  shekel.'^ 

It  seems,  therefore,  reasonable  to  suppose  that, 
just  as  the  Passover  is  an  institution  of  ancient 
Israel,  although  it  has  gathered  about  it  usages  of  a 
comparatively  recent  time,  so  many  of  the  laws  con- 
tained in  the  Pentateuch  may,  before  reaching  the 
form  in  which  they  now  stand,  have  been  modified 
through  changing  circumstances  in  the  national  life, 
and  yet  be  in  their  origin  and  character  Mosaic. 
Even  if  we  supposed  that  all  the  laws  of  the  Penta- 
teuch were  originally  written  down  by  Moses — 
though  the  Biblical  writers  never  say  that  they 
were — there  is  the  probability— nay,  the  certainty — 
that  these  were  copied  from  time  to  time  in  whole 
or  in  portions.  And  seeing  that  practice,  in 
regard  to  some  things  at  least,  varied,  and  there 
was  no  hesitation  about  introducing  certain  altera- 
tions  in  the  observances,  the  transcriber  in  a  later 
age,  in  writing  out  a  code  for  practical  use,  might, 
so  to  speak,  translate  the  details  of  prevailing 
ordinances  into  the  language  of  his  own  time,  and 
describe  the  thing  in  the  form  in  which  he  know  it. 
If  such  a  double  process  went  on,  it  would  go  far  to 
account  for  the  strange  mixture  of  new  and  old  that 
we  find  in  these  laws,  some  relating  to  and  only 
practicable  in  the  desert  life  or  a  more  i)rimitivc 
state  of  society,  and  others  denoting  a  time  when 
the  national  life  was  in  a  more  consolidated  posi- 
tion.    In   short,    we  should  have  before  us  a  kind 

1  Neh.  X.  32  ft.  -  Exod.  xxx.  13. 


136  Enrhj  Beligion  of  Israel 

of  history  of  tlio  ol)sorvanccs,  on  the  understanding, 
however,  that  the  rites  had  been  observed.  The 
aspect  of  the  Levitical  Code,  in  particular,  is  hardly 
intelligible  on  any  other  supposition.  To  say  that 
it  was  all  drawn  up  at  one  time  by  persons  setting 
themselves  to  the  systematic  work  of  framing  a  code 
without  written  materials  before  them,  is  to  ascribe 
to  the  writers  either  great  want  of  skill  on  the  one 
theory,  or  a  design  to  deceive  on  the  other.  In 
view  of  the  only  statements  which  the  Biblical 
writers  themselves  make  on  the  subject,  there  is 
nothing  to  preclude  the  supposition  of  various 
editings  of  the  laws  at  different  times,  while  yet  the 
system  as  a  whole,  and  e^'en  the  three  separate 
Codes,  had  a  i:)Ositive  basis  in  Mosaic  legislation. 

II.  This,  however,  does  not  satisfy  the  modern 
critical  writers.  They  tliiiik  tliey  can  prove,  by  a 
comparison  of  the  Codes,  and  by  references  to  his- 
tory, that  tlie  Codes  belong  to  ])criods  very  far  apart. 
This,  in  fact,  has  been  a  great  part  of  tlic  laborious 
task  of  Pentateuch  criticism:  and  while,  on  the 
one  hand,  it  has  been  claimed  that  by  pure  literary 
criticism  tlic  three  Codes  have  been  distinguished 
from  one  another,  it  has  been  finally  confessed,  on 
the  other  hand,  that  tlie  order  of  the  Codes  and 
their  respcM'tivo  dates  cannot  l)e  determined  solely 
from  the  Co<les  themselves,  but  must  be  ascertained 
from  an  examination  of  tlie  historical  and  prophetical 
l)ooks  wliicli  inUow  tlu^ni  in  tlie  Canon.  The  line  of 
argument  has  been  as  follows:  If  from  a  consid- 
eration ol"  the  books  relating  to  a  time  subsequent 
to  Moses,  we  liud  a  state  of  matters  corresponding 


Tlie  TJiree  Codes.  137 

with  the  rcquircineuts  of  one  of  these  Codes,  it  is 
concluded  that  the  Code  in  question  was  known  and 
recognised  and  in  operation;  if,  on  the  contrary,  the 
state  of  matters  shows  that  what  were  the  require- 
ments of  any  one  Code  were  not  put  in  force,  and 
w^re  ignored,  not  only  by  the  people,  but  by  the 
religious  leaders  and  guides  of  the  people,  we  con- 
clude that  such  a  Code,  not  receiving  official  recog- 
nition, was  in  fact  non-existent.  According  to  this 
principle,  then,  it  is  argued  that  the  Deuteronomic 
Code  was  not  known,  and  therefore  was  not  existent 
till  the  time  of  Josiah;  because  up  to  that  time  not 
only  the  nation  at  large,  but  even  the  religious 
teachers  of  the  nation,  openly  and  without  compunc- 
tion practised  the  worship  of  Jahaveh  at  the  high 
places,  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  command 
reiterated  in  Deuteronomy,  that  there  was  to  be  a 
central  sanctuary,  at  which  alone  the  former  rites 
of  worship  were  permissible.  In  the  same  way,  it  is 
argued  that  the  distinction  of  priests  and  Levites  so 
clearly  marked  in  the  Levitical  Code  did  not  in  fact 
come  into  existence  till  after  the  Deuteronomic 
Code;  that  many  of  the  laws  contained  in  the  Levit- 
ical Code  were  not  know,  and  did  not  exist  till  the 
time  of  Ezra;  and  therefore  that  the  Levitical  Code 
as  a  whole  belongs  to  the  time  of  Ezra,  or  even  a 
subsequent  date.  The  order  of  the  Codes,  therefore, 
on  this  view,  is— Book  of  the  Covenant,  Deutero- 
nomic Code,  Levitical  Code,  and  they  are  separated 
by  wide  distances;  for  whereas  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant  belongs  to  the  earliest  period  of  written 
composition — the  century  B.C.  850-750 — the  next  in 


138  Early  Beligion  of  Israel. 

order,  tlie  Deiitcronomic,  comes  at  least  two  cen- 
turies later — viz.,  in  021  B.C.;  and  the  Levitical 
Code,  if  placed,  at  the  earliest,  in  the  time  of  f]zra, 
falls  two  centuries  later  still — viz.,  about  444  B.C. 

It  does  not  require  to  be  said  that  there  is  no 
direct  historical  evidence  of  the  introduction  of  the 
various  Codes  at  the  dates  assigned.  It  is  b}-  a  pro- 
cess of  inference  from  the  history,  and  ])\  a  com- 
parison of  the  Codes,  that  the  conclusions  are  reached 
that  under  certain  definite  historical  circumstances 
each  successive  Code  was  introduced,  and  that  cer- 
tain appreciable  influences  were  at  work  to  bring 
about  their  acceptance.  Let  us  therefore  look  a 
little  more  closely  at  Avhat  the  position  implies,  and 
how  it  is  related  to  certain  admitted  I'acts. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  general  position  here  is  part 
of  the  whole  scheme  of  reconstructed  history,  accord- 
ing to  which  the  law  came  gradually  into  existence 
and  authoritative  recognition.  In  connection  with 
this  part  of  the  argument,  the  positions  considered 
in  the  preceding  chapters  should  be  borne  in  mind, 
as  to  the  alleged  basis  of  the  law  in  custom  and  in 
spontaneous  nature  feasts,  because  we  ought  now  to 
find  some  precise  information  as  to  the  circumstances 
that  led  to  the  stamping  of  custom  with  authority, 
and  the  transition  from  a  mere  nature  reference  to 
religious  significance.  AVe  come,  in  fiict,  face  to 
face  with  the  (piestions,  when  and  under  what  cir- 
cumstances the  respective  laws  became  codified. 

Critical  writers  prefer  to  commence  their  investi- 
gations with  DeutiM'onomy:  we  ])reler.  Ibr  i-inisons 
that  will  appear,  to  take   tin*   Codes  in   the   alleged 


The  Three  Codes.  139 

order  of  tlioir  promulgation.     Now  it  is  not  a  little 
remarkable  that  modern  critics,  while  thej  tell   us 
very  particularly  the  historical  circumstances  under 
which   the   Deuteronomic  and  Priestly  Codes  were 
produced,  can  tell  us  very  little  about  the  earliest  of 
all  the  Codes,  the  Jehovistic.     Yet  this  is  the  very 
one  which  we  should  think  must  have  had  a  control- 
ling influence  on  subsecpient  legislation  and  codifica- 
tion.    Wellhausen,  it  will  be  remembered,'  in  fixing 
the  period  at  which  Hebrew  literature  first  flourished, 
makes  this  collection  of  laws  contemporaneous  with 
the   earliest   historiography,   and  somewhat  earlier 
than  the  legends  about  the  patriarchs  and  primitive 
times.     He  says  ^  that  both  the  Jehovistic  laAv  and 
the  Jehovistic  narrative   ' '  obviously  belong  to  the 
pre-prophetic  period";  for  it  is  inconceivable  that 
the  prophets  Ilosea  or  Amos,   or  any  like-minded 
person,  could  glorify  (in  connection  with  the  history 
of  the  patriarchs)  the  local  sanctuaries  in  the  Avay 
that  these  narratives  do.     Therefore  at  some  period 
earlier  than  the  first  writing  prophets — earlier  than 
oi-  about  as  early  as  the  patriarchal  histories — ^^  cer- 
tain collections  of  laws  and  decisions  of  the  priests, 
of  which  we  have  an  example  in  Exodus  xxi.,  xxii., 
were  committed  to  writing. "     We  are  told  in  another 
passage   that    the    Jehovistic    history-book,   whose 
character  is  best  marked  by  the  story  of  the  patri- 
archs, has  legislative  elements  taken  ^' into  it  only 
at  one  point,  where  they  fit  into  the  historical  con- 
nection— namely,   when  the  giving  of  the    law    at 

1  Tho  imssapro  is   quntod   ahovo   in   chap.  iii.  ]i.  0()  f. 

2  Hist,  of  IsraN.  p.  :]2. 


140  Early  Religion  oj  Israel. 

Sinai  is  spoken  of,  Exod.  xx.-xxiii.,  xxxiv."  (p.  T), 
although  soon  after  we  are  also  told  that  "the 
Jehovist  does  not  even  pretend  to  being  a  Mosaic 
law  of  any  kind;  it  aims  at  being  a  simple  book  of 
history"  (p.  9.)  All  this  throws  verj-  little  light 
upon  this  first  collection  of  written  laws,  whicli,  one 
would  have  thought,  was  epoch-making.  Indeed 
Wellhausen  goes  on  repeating  that  the  Torah  of 
Jehovah  still  continued  to  be  the  special  charge  of 
the  priests,  though  '^  it  was  not  even  now  a  code  or 
law  in  our  sense  of  the  word;  Jehovah  had  not  yet 
made  His  Testament;  He  was  still  living  and  active  in 
Israel;  .  .  .  the  Torah  had  still  occupation  enough, 
the  progressive  life  of  the  nation  ever  affording 
matter  for  new  questions  "  (p.  468).  And  as  to  the 
outward  observances  of  religion,  we  are  told  '^the 
cultus,  as  to  place,  time,  matter,  and  form,  belonged 
almost  entirely  to  the  inheritance  which  Israel  had 
received  from  Canaan;  to  distinguish  what  belonged 
to  the  worshij)  of  Jehovah  from  that  which  belonged 
to  Baal  was  no  easy  matter''  (p.  469). 

Now,  suppose  we  grant  that  the  book  of  the  Cov- 
enant was  codified  as  late  as  is  here  asserted,  it  bears 
on  the  face  of  it,  at  all  events,  a  testimony  to  Mosaic 
authorship,  and  authoritative  sanction,  and  has  a 
strictly  religious  basis.  It  is  misleading  in  Wellliau- 
sen  to  say  that  "  the  Jehovist  does  not  even  pretend 
to  being  a  Mosaic  law  of  any  kind."  It  aims  at 
being  a  true  history,  and  it  brings  in  this  Code  under 
definite  historical  conditions  as  given  by  Moses. 
Wliat  more  do  the  writers  of  the  other  law-books? 
Moreover,  to  whatever  extent  the  worship  may  have 


The  Three  Codes.  141 

followed  Canaanite  practice,  a  sliarp  line  is  drawn 
here  between  Mosaic  requirements  and  the  worship 
of  the  nations  (Exod.  xxii.  20,  xxiii.  23  ff.)  Let  it 
be  supposed  that  this  Code  is  merely  the  embodiment 
of  praxis  or  the  crystallisation  of  custom — and  it  is 
certainly  more — the  praxis  or  custom  was  at  all 
events  by  that  time  of  so  high  antiquity  and  invested 
with  such  authority  that  the  Code  was  made  Mosaic; 
and  we  ask  the  critics  in  vain  for  an  explanation  of 
this  ascription  of  the  very  earliest  laws  to  a  time  so 
long  antecedent,  and  to  circumstances  so  positively 
historical. 

But  what  we  want  very  particularly  to  know  is  the 
occasion  that  at  this  precise  time  called  for  a  codifi- 
cation of  law  even  of  this  modest  compass.  What 
set  the  process  of  codification  agoing  at  least  two 
centuries  before  it  occurred  to  any  one  to  prepare  an 
authoritative  book  of  law?  For  this  is  the  way  in 
which  Deuteronomy  is  spoken  of:  ''  The  idea  of  mak- 
ing a  definite  formulated  written  Torah  the  law  of 
the  land  is  the  important  point;  it  [viz.,  the  Deuter- 
onomic  Code]  was  a  first  attempt,  and  succeeded  at 
the  outset  bej-ond  expectation."  '  This  book  of  the 
Covenant,  however,  shows  that  such  an  idea  is  much 
older,  though  the  fact  is  simply  slurred  over. 

Further,  if  this  Code  was  the  statement  of  tlie 
legal  customs  of  that  comparatively  late  time,  it  can- 
not have  been  the  statement  of  tlie  whole  of  them. 
By  the  time  assumed  the  national  life  had  taken 
definite  form;  the  Temple  of  Solomon  had  long  been 
in  existence,  priests  as  well  as  prophets  Avere  a  nu- 

1  Wellhausen,  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  402. 


142  Early  Tteligion  of  Israel. 

merous  and  influential  class.  The  mere  appearance 
of  this  Code  at  what  is  called  the  earliest  period 
of  literary  composition  presupposes,  as  we  have  ar- 
gued,^ an  antecedent  education,  and  a  literary  activ- 
ity in  priestly  circles.  Thousands  of  cases  of  casuis- 
try, jurisprudence,  and  ceremony  had  arisen  and 
been  settled  in  some  way  before  the  time  this  Code  is 
alleged  to  have  existed.  At  length  (we  are  told)  it 
had  occurred  to  some  person  or  persons  to  draw  up 
this  Code,  brief  though  it  be,  in  all  the  sententious- 
ness  of  this  class  of  composition.  Now  it  does  seem 
very  remarkable  that,  a  beginning  having  been  made, 
at  the  very  earliest  period  of  written  composition, 
the  thing  was  entirely  discontinued  for  at  least  two 
centuries,  and  that  during  a  period  wlien  literary 
composition  of  other  kinds  attained  its  bloom;  at  a 
time  too  when  the  civil,  religious,  and  commercial 
situations  of  the  people  were  such  as  would  demand 
authoritative  regulation  aud  control.  A  glance  at 
the  prescriptions  contained  in  the  book  of  the 
Covenant  will  show  that  it  contains,  though  in  a 
brief  and  germinal  manner,  legislation  in  all  the 
directions  that  are  followed  out  more  fully  in  the 
larger  Codes,  and  is  enough  to  suggest  the  hundreds 
of  cases  and  relations  similar  to  those  then  jirovided 
for  that  must  have  arisen  in  the  daily  life  of  the 
people,  antl  demanded  standing  rules  for  their  settle- 
ment. If  it  be  said  tliat  oral  teaching  would  deter- 
mine all  these,  we  ask,  Why  were  not  sucli  otlier 
matters  as,  e.f/.,  of  fire  arising  in  a  corn-tleld,  or  of 
an  ox  goring  a  man,  left  to  the  same  authority?  The 

1  See  above,  clmp.  Iv.  p.  105. 


The  Three  Codes.  143 

marvellous  thing  is  that,  codification  having  begun, 
even  at  the  time  to  which  this  Code  is  assigned,  it 
did  not  go  on.  Is  there  any  class  of  literature 
more  voluminous,  more  liable  to  grow  from  its  own 
inherent  impulse,  than  the  legal?  And  wiien  his- 
tory, prophecy,  poetry,  flourished,  when  every  kind 
of  literature,  in  fact,  which  Israel  produced  had 
reached  its  best  before  the  time  of  Josiah,  that  the 
legal  and  ceremonial  should  have  once  taken  a  start 
and  then  stood  still  is  surely  something  which  it  re- 
quires the  faith  of  a  modern  critic  to  believe.  It  is 
much  more  probable  that  when  Hosea  speaks  of  the 
writing  of  ten  thousand  precepts,'  he  w-as  familiar 
with  and  alluded  to  a  literary  activity  in  this  field 
of  composition  of  a  much  more  copious  extent  than 
the  brief  book  of  the  Covenant. 

Difficulties  like  these,  arising  out  of  the  theory  so 
far  as  it  refers  to  the  book  of  the  Covenant,  suggest 
other  difficulties  in  connection  with  the  succeeding 
Codes  and  with  the  process  of  codification  in  general. 
There  is,  for  example,  the  difficulty  of  explaining 
the  source  of  the  laws  embodied  in  the  succeeding 
Codes.  The  book  of  Deuteronomy  contains  laws 
that  relate  to  circumstances  of  the  desert  life,  and 
so  does  the  Levitical  Code.  Where  w^ere  these  laws 
preserved  up  to  this  time,  if  they  had  an  existence 
at  all?  If  they  did  not  exist,  whence  came  they  into 
codes  which  were  for  quite  difierent  circumstances? 
Again,  the  Code  of  Deuteronomy,  which  is  said  to 
have  been  introduced  for  the  s})ecific  purpose  of  cen- 
tralising the  worship  at  the  Temple  of  Jerusalem,  is 

1  See  above,  chap.  xiii.  p.  342. 


144  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

singularly  poor  in  regulations  for  ritual,  the  very 
thing  we  should  have  expected  to  be  attended  to, 
when  a  multitude  of  local  sanctuaries,  with  presum- 
ably varying,  not  to  say  corrupted,  worship,  were 
abolished.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Levitical  Code, 
drawn  up,  as  is  alleged,  at  a  time  wiien  the  Temple 
was  in  ruins  and  ritual  worship  impossible,  deals 
above  all,  and  in  minutest  detail,  with  ceremonial 
matters.  One  naturally  asks.  What  was  the  source 
whence  came  the  ritual  and  ceremonial  laws  which 
bulk  so  largely  in  the  final  Code  of  Leviticus?  And 
tlien,  what  occurred  in  the  long  intervals  between 
the  successive  Codes?  Were  these  Codes  sudden  ap- 
pearances, something  quite  new  for  their  respective 
times,  or  did  they  come  about  gradually  and  receive 
acceptance  as  a  matter  of  course? 

It  must  be  confessed  that  it  is  not  very  easy  to 
follow  the  reasoning  of  Wellhausen  in  his  treatment 
of  these  and  suchlike  questions,  for  he  seems  to  be 
not  quite  consistent  with  himself  in  the  positions  he 
takes  up  at  different  parts  of  his  argument.  For 
example,  he  says  at  one  time  that  '^  proofs  of  the 
existence  of  the  Priestly  Code  [previous  to  the  exile] 
are  not  to  be  found — not  a  trace  of  them  ''  (p.  365); 
that  the  Code  was  not  only  not  operative,  but  "that 
it  did  not  even  admit  of  being  carried  into  effect  in 
the  conditions  that  prevailed  previous  to  the  exile  ' 
(p.  12).  On  the  other  hand,  he  says  that  the  ''  real 
point  at  issue"  is  'Miot  to  prove  that  the  Mosaic 
law  was  not  in  force  in  the  i)eriod  before  the  exile;" 
that  he  and  his  school  ''  do  not  go  so  far  as  to  be- 
lieve that  the  Israelite  cultus  entered  the  world  of 


The  Tliree  Codes.  145 

a  sudden — as  little  by  Ezekiel  or  by  Ezra  as  by 
Moses;  "  and  that  it  is  a  mistaken  assumption  that 
on  the  modern  hypothesis  '^the  whole  cultus  was 
invented  all  at  once  by  tlie  Priestly  Code,  and  only 
introduced  after  the  exile  "  (p.  366).  In  brief,  he 
sums  up  his  position  in  the  words  which  he  prefixes 
as  a  motto  to  the  first  part  of  his  book,  ' '  These 
having  not  the  law,  do  by  nature  the  works  of  the 
law."  If  this  merely  meant,  as  it  might  at  first 
sight  seem  to  mean,  that  the  respective  Codes  were 
all  actually  observed  in  some  form  previous  to  the 
times  at  which  they  are  said  to  have  been  introduced, 
and  that  only  the  ivriting  of  them  in  the  forms  in 
which  they  appear  was  a  matter  of  later  date,  there 
would  not  be  much  objection  to  the  position;  and  I 
do  not  know  that  it  would  be  irreconcilable  with  the 
Biblical  theory;  but  we  shall  see  that  the  hypothesis 
involves  a  much  more  serious  assumption.  It  is 
plain  that  for  the  establishment  of  Wellhausen's 
thesis  there  must  be  historical  proof  of  two  things: 
(1)  that  the  law,  as  expressed  in  the  Codes,  was  not 
in  the  possession  of  Israel  up  to  the  time  the  Codes 
were  introduced,  according  to  the  one  half  of  his 
motto — '^  these  having  not  the  law;  "  and  (2)  that 
the  things  contained  in  the  law,  the  works  of  the 
law,  were  practised  by  nature — i.e.,  without  pre- 
scription— before  these  dates.  Attention  must  be 
drawn  to  the  different  reference  of  the  words  as 
used  by  St.  Paul  and  by  Wellhausen.  The  apostle  is 
speaking  not  of  a  ceremonial  or  ritual  law,  but  of 
moral  principles  ''  written  on  the  heart,"  the  opera- 
tion of  which  can  be  traced  in  the  Gentile  world. 


146  Eay^ly  Religion  of  Israel. 

What  Wollliausenhas  to  prove  is,  that  a  law  sucli  as 
that  contained  in  the  Priestly  Code  was  taught  by 
nature  and  practised  as  a  custom  by  Israel  before  its 
details  were  prescril)ed  by  any  authority, — a  very 
different  matter. 

(1.)  For  the  establishment  of  the  first  position 
reliance  must  be  placed  for  the  most  part  on  the 
argument  from  silence,  as  it  is  called — i.e.,  if  the 
thing  we  are  in  search  of  is  not  mentioned,  particu- 
larly if  it  is  not  mentioned  where  we  should  look  for 
it,  it  is  assumed  that  the  thing  did  nut  exist.  Well- 
hausen  objects  to  the  process  followed  by  him  l)eing 
called  by  his  name,  and  says,  "What  the  opponents 
of  Grafs  hypothesis  call  its  argument  ex  siJentio,  is 
nothing  more  or  less  than  the  universally  valid 
method  of  historical  investigation  ''  (p.  365).  One 
would  think  it  depended  not  a  little  upon  the  man- 
ner and  the  extent  to  which  the  i)rocess  is  carried 
out;  and  it  would  be  easy  to  illustrate  the  havoc 
that  lAight  l)e  made  in  general  history  by  a  reliance 
upon  this  argument.^  We  have  already  in  a  former 
chapter  -  observed  the  significant  absence  of  all  ref- 
erence  to  education;  and  in  regard  to  many  other 

•  Whatoly.  for  example,  in  his  '  Historic  Doubts,  '  draws  attention  to 
tlin  fact  that  tlio  principal  Parisian  journal  in  1814,  on  the  very  day  on 
wlilcli  tlio  Alli'Ml  armies  entered  Paris  as  conquerors,  makes  no  mention 
of  any  such  event.  80,  too,  the  battle  of  Poictiers  in  732.  which  elTect- 
ually  checked  the  spread  of  Mohammedanism  across  Europe,  is  not 
once  referred  to  in  the  monastic  annals  of  the  period.  .\KHiii.  Sir 
Thomas  Browne  lived  throu^'h  the  civil  wars  and  the  C.Mninunwealth ; 
yet.  says  a  bl(.^'ra|)ii(M-,  ••  11(1  syllable  in  any  ut  liis  writin^rs,  notwith- 
standint,'  their  profound  and  penetrative  meditations  ujton  viiissitudes 
in  human  lives  antl  empires,  betrays  the  least  partisanship  in  the 
tra^'edy  eiuicled  on  the  world's  >;re.it  staj^e  aiound  liim."  And.  once 
more.  Sale  notes  that  circumcision  is  held  by  tht>  Moh.-immedans  to  bo 
an  ancient  divine  institution,  the  rite  having'  been  in  use  many  years 
before  Mohammed;  and  yet  It  is  nut  so  much  as  ouce  mentioned  in  the 
Koran. 

^  Chap.  iv.  p.  75. 


Tlie  Three  Codes.  14Y 

things,  we  are  left  in  like  ignorance  by  the  Scriptural 
writers.  Graphic  as  their  descriptions  are  when 
they  exist,  there  are  hundreds  of  details  of  daily 
life  and  ordinary  custom  in  regard  to  which  we 
would  fain  have  information.  The  prophet  Isaiah, 
in  one  well-known  passage,^  gives  a  complete  in- 
ventory of  the  wardrobe  of  a  fashionable  lady  of 
Jerusalem;  Init  a  great  number  of  the  words  he 
employs  are  found  only  in  that  passage,  and  are 
such  that  we  can  only  guess  at  the  precise  things 
they  are  meant  to  signify.  And  to  speak  more 
particularly  of  customs  and  observances,  who  shall 
describe  to  us,  from  information  drawn  from  the  Bib- 
lical books,  the  mode  in  which  the  Sabbath  was  ob- 
served in  the  time  of  the  prophets?  We  know  from 
their  references  to  it^  that  the  Sabbath  was  spe- 
cially sacred;  and  the  book  of  the  Covenant,  at  the 
latest,  vouches  for  the  existence  of  the  Decalogue, 
which  enjoins  the  sanctity  of  the  Sabbath:  yet  we 
remain  in  almost  total  ignorance  of  the  manner  in 
which  its  sanctity  was  preserved.  And  the  same 
thing  holds  of  other  feasts,  whether  we  regard  them 
as  matters  of  custom  or  of  prescription.  Things  of 
daily  occurrence  and  of  standing  observance,  just 
because  they  are  such,  are  most  naturally  passed  by 
without  notice.  It  is  perfectly  evident  that  the  Old 
Testament  writers  contemplated  as  their  readers 
those  who  were  familiar  with  the  most  familiar  things 
in  their  national  life  and  history.  As  for  Hebrew 
prophets   not  referring  to  legislative   books,    it   is 

1  Isa.  iii.  16-24. 

a  Amos  viii.  5:Hosea  ii.  11;   Isa.   i.  13:    cf.   2  Kings  iv.   23,  xi.  5,7,9, 
xvi.  18. 


148  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

much  more  remarkable  that  they  do  not  refer  to  pro- 
phetical books,  and  scarcely  make  a  quotation  from 
one  another.  I  do  not  know  that  we  have  positive 
historical  evidence  (of  a  contemporary  kind)  that 
would  establish  the  existence  of  the  great  bulk  of  the 
existing  prophetic  literature  before  the  captivity; 
and  quite  recently  a  French  critic  ^  has  put  forth  the 
view  that  the  greater  part  of  the  literature  of  the 
Hebrews  is  a  free  creation  of  a  school  of  theolo- 
gians after  the  restoration. 

A  mode  of  reasoning  like  this  can  be  tested  by 
one  striking  instance,  and  such  an  instance  is  fur- 
nished in  the  great  day  of  atonement  (Levit.  xvi. ) 
A  ceremonial  so  imposing,  one  would  think,  would 
not  pass  without  notice,  and  the  modern  school 
points  with  confidence  to  the  fact  that  though  the 
institution  bulks  so  largely  in  the  Levitical  Code,  it 
is  not  once  referred  to  in  the  pre-exilic  history,  and 
therefore  it  must  have  been  devised  first  of  all  by 
Ezra  or  his  successors.  But  the  instance  proves  too 
much,  for,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  there  is  no  positive 
historical  account  of  the  observance  till  about  the 
beginning  of  the  Christian  era,  at  the  earliest  the 
time  of  John  Ilyrcanus  or  even  Ilerod  the  Great,  37 
B.C.,  a  date  at  which  it  was  im])ossil)le  that  the 
prescription  of  the  ceremony  could  have  l)een  in- 
serted in  the  Law  Code,  which,  according  to  Well- 
hauscn,  was  introduced  in  n.c.  444.''' 

1  Maurice  VornoB.  Les  Rcsultats  do  rExt>gi>so  Bibllquo,  Paris.  1890, 

2  DelltZHch,  P.Mitat(Mj.-h-Kritiscljo  Stu<liou  In  LuthanU's  Ztsch.  f. 
Klrkl.  WlaH<«nacl)art  und  Kirkl.  Lphon.lHHO.  p.  I7:i  f. :  Dillmann.  Cnini. 
on  Lev.,  j).  r)2r>;  UnMltMikamj).  (tcsoIz  u.  Pruphoton.  p.  11(>.  Thn  fact  that 
Ezekiel.  in  his  [vision  uf|  ritual,  docs  not  mention  the  day  of  atone- 
ment. Is  taken  by  the  critica  to  prove  that  ho  was  not  aware  of  the 


Hie  Three  Codes.  149 

But,  indeed,  we  do  not  need  to  come  so  far  down 
in  history  for  evidence  tliat  the  non-observance  or 
the  absence  of  mention  of  a  kiw  is  not  a  proof  of  its 
non-existence.  On  the  position  of  the  modern  criti- 
cal writers,  the  Jehovistic  book  of  the  Covenant  w^as 
in  existence  two  centuries  before  Deuteronomy. 
And  yet,  not  to  speak  of  the  moral  precei)ts  with 
which  the  Code  is  charged,  and  which  were  so  sadly 
violated  in  the  life  of  the  people,  can  distinct  proof 
be  produced  that  the  Sabbatic  year  prescribed  in 
Exod.  xxiii.  10,  11,  or  even  the  w^cekly  Sabbath  it- 
self, was  observed  in  the  time  during  which  this 
Code  is  said  to  have  been  the  sole  law-book?  Why, 
the  Deuteronomic  law  itself  was  systematically 
violated  after  the  time  of  Josiah.'  Down  even  in 
the  times  after  tlie  exile,  among  a  community  which 
had  learned  by  misfortune  tlic  evil  of  breaking  the 
law,  and  which  had  returned  through  hardship  to  set 
up  a  new  state  at  Jerusalem,  Ezra  and  Nchemiah 
had  to  contend  for  the  observance  of  the  most  fun- 
damental principles  that  lay  not  only  at  tlie  basis 
of  the  Deuteronomic  Code,  but  at  the  foundation  of 
Israel's  national  existence.^ 

So  far,  then,  as  the  first  part  of  Wellhausen's 
thesis   is  concerned,  it  cannot  be   sustained.     The 


legislation  of  the  Priestly  Code  in  which  it  is  prescribed.  It  is  urged, 
however,  in  reply,  that  Ezekiel's  idea  of  a  double  atonement  for  the 
sanctuary  (Ezek.  xlv.  18-'2J)  may  be  an  intensification  of  the  atone- 
ment required  in  the  Priestly  Code.  And  Dillmann  remarks,  "Why 
Ezekiel  should  first  have  ]ir(>iluced  the  idea  of  such  an  atonement  is 
not  at  all  apparent,  still  less  Imw  people  of  a  later  time  ventured  to  hit 
upon  quite  different  ch;iracteri sties,  and  to  give  out  those  as  Mosaic. 

1  Compare  Deut.  xv.  12  f.  with  Jer.  xxxiv.  13  f. 

"  Compare  Ezra  ix.  1.  2,  Neh.  x,  30,  xiil.  23,  with  Exod.  xxxiv.  16,  Deut. 
vil.  3.  Compare  also  Neh.  x.  31  with  Deut.  xv.  2;  and  Noh.  x.  37,  39, 
with  Deut,  xii.  17. 


150  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

arguiiient  from  silence  docs  not  prove  it,  since  we 
know  that  many  things  of  much  greater  significance 
to  the  prophets  than  ritual  are  not  mentioned  by 
them.  The  argument  from  non-oljservance  does  not 
prove  it,  since  the  Deuteronomic  and  Lcvitical 
Codes  themselves  were  broken  systematically  after 
the  admitted  dates  of  their  introduction.  And  the 
existence  of  the  book  of  the  Covenant,  or  even  of 
such  a  part  of  it  as  would  satisfy  Wellhausen's  own 
account  of  its  origin,  flatly  disproves  the  assertion 
that  u})  to  the  time  of  Deuteronomy  the  Israelites 
were  in  the  position  of  people   ^^  having  no  law." 

(2.)  The  other  part  of  Wellhausen's  motto  that  has 
to  be  established  is,  that  Israel,  without  the  law,  did 
the  works  of  the  law;  in  other  words,  that  the  Codes 
were  not  suddenly  introduced.  On  this  subject,  the 
use  of  the  two  terms,  ^'j^raxis  "  and  *^  programme," 
plays  a  prominent  part  in  the  discussions;  and  we 
can  understand  a  code  coming  into  existence  by 
either  process.  The  practice  or  usage  of  the  time 
is  systematised  more  or  less,  and  put  down  in  the 
form  of  prescription;  this  is  the  codification  of 
praxis.  Or,  on  the  other  hand,  a  person  or  persons, 
considering  the  existing  state  of  matters  unsatisfac- 
tory or  insufficient,  may  devise  a  better  scheme,  and 
set  it  forth  in  orderly  form  as  a  legislative  pro- 
gramme. It  is  remarkal)le  how,  on  either  hypo- 
thesis, the  critical  writers  find  it  difficult  to  get  rid 
of  the  postulate  of  Mosaic  legislation,  to  which  they 
have  so  much  objection.  For  they  tell  us  that  the 
Deuteronomic  Code  was  a  programme  drawn  up  by 
prophets  and  priests  combined  for  the  centralisation 


Tlie  Three  Codes.  151 

of  worship,  without  wliich  they  saw  there  coiiUI  be  no 
purity  of  worship.  It  coukl  not,  on  the  hypothesis, 
have  been  a  codification  of  tlie  praxis,  for  the  whole 
drift  of  the  theory  is,  that  up  to  the  introduction  -of 
this  Code,  worship  at  any  place  was  the  practice. 
Yet  the  men  who  brought  about  the  introduction  of 
this  Code  were  the  Mosaic  party — the  party  who 
strove  to  preserve  what  they  regarded  as  the  true  re- 
ligion of  Israel, — and  they  appealed  to  Mosaic 
authority  in  ascribing  the  Code  to  him.  AVellhausen 
gives  us  to  understand  that  the  movement  for  centrali- 
sation was  connected  with  the  growth  of  monotheistic 
conceptions.  In  all  this  there  is  a  testimony  to  the 
fact  that  Mosaism,  in  its  essence,  was  monotheistic, 
and  that  the  Deuteronomic  Code  rested  on  Mosaism 
at  its  best,  to  such  an  extent  that  the  authority  of 
Moses  had  to  be  invoked  to  secure  its  acceptance. 
Again,  Ezekiel  is  said  to  have  put  forth  a  legislative 
programme;  this,  however,  he  did  not  ascribe  to 
Moses,  and  his  Code  was  not  adopted.  Was  there 
any  connection  between  the  two  things?  In  all  this 
talk  about  programme,  it  seems  to  me  the  critical 
writers  are  in  an  uncomfortable  dilemma.  Either  the 
programme  is  something  new,  and  then  their  position 
that  the  law  did  not  suddenly  come  into  force  be- 
comes untenable;  or  else  it  is  a  departure  in  the 
spirit  of  the  Mosaic  legislation,  which  amounts  to 
the  Biblical  view  that  what  took  place  was  a  re- 
formation of  the  worship,  not  an  innovation. 

The  same  perplexing  situation  arises  when  resort 
is  had  to  praxis  as  an  explanation  of  the  origin  of 
the  Codes.     This  is  particularly  the  case  with  the 


152  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

Priestly  Code.  AVc  are  told  ^  that  wlien  tlie  Temple 
was  ill  ruins,  and  there  was  no  longer  a  possibility 
of  the  worship  being  carried  on,  a  body  of  men  in 
the  captivity  set  themselves  to  a  careful  study  of  the 
praxis  as  it  had  been  carried  on,  and  drew  up  what 
their  memory  had  fondly  preserved  of  the  cultus,  and 
tliat  this  assumed  finally  the  form  of  the  Priestly 
Code.  The  question  at  once  occurs,  What  praxis? 
Was  the  worship  of  the  temple,  as  Ezekiel  and 
others  remembered  it,  of  the  pure  Mosaic  type  pre- 
scribed in  the  Code  which  men  of  his  spirit  elabor- 
ated? What  then  becomes  of  Wellhausen's  assertion 
that  the  observance  of  the  Priestly  Code  was  impos- 
si))le  in  the  conditions  prevailing  before  tlie  exile? 
What  l)ecomes  also  of  all  the  burden  of  denunciation, 
of  which  the  prophetic  and  historical  books  are  full, 
of  the  corruptions  that  prevailed?  But  if  the  praxis 
was  corrupt,  what  guided  Ezekiel  and  Ezra  to  pro- 
duce a  Code  which  was  in  ' '  the  spirit  of  the  Mosaic 
legislation  "?  Again  we  fall  back  upon  the  Mosaic 
legislation,  Avliicli,  unless  we  are  to  give  the  lie  to 
all  history,  was  something  better  than  the  corrupt 
practice. 

Further,  if  the  critics  will  have  it  that  tlie  Priestly 
Code  is  a  codification  of  the  praxis,  we  may  employ 
their  own  argument,  and  ask  them  for  historical 
proof  of  the  praxis  of  anything  that  can  be  supposed 
to  have  formed  the  materials  of  the  new  Code. 
Wellhausen  professes  indeed  to  give  what  lie  calls 
''a  sort  of  history  of  the  ordinances  of  worship;" 
but  he  is  constrained  to  add,  ^vRude  and  colourless 

1  WeUhausen,  Hist,  of  Israel,  pp.  69  f.,  404  f. 


The  Three  Codes.  153 

that  history  must  be  confessed  to  be — a  fault  due  to 
the  materials,  which  hardly  allow  us  to  do  more  than 
mark  the  contrast  between  pre-exilic  and  post-exilic, 
and,  in  a  secondary  measure,  that  between  Deuter- 
onomic  and  pre-Deuteronomic. "  ^  Let  us,  for  ex- 
ample, take  the  three  great  feasts  of  the  Passover, 
Shebuoth  or  Weeks,  and  Tabernacles.  These,  as 
agricultural  feasts,  are  admitted  by  the  critics  to 
date  back  to  the  time  of  the  settlement  in  Canaan, 
though  the  distinctive  religious  or  national  character 
attributed  to  them  by  Biblical  writers  is  disputed. 
Things  of  such  regular  recurrence  could  not  be  kept 
hid,  and  surely  here  the  critical  canon  of  observance 
may  be  applied.  Yet  we  have  already  seen  ^  the 
difficulty  Wellhausen  has  in  proving  their  existence; 
for  in  regard  to  the  celebration  of  the  feasts  in 
question  before  the  exile,  we  have  only  very  few 
notices,  and  these  mostly  very  slight.  The  obser- 
vance of  all  the  three  is  only  mentioned  twice,  once 
in  the  most  general  terms  in  the  book  of  Kings  (1 
Kings  ix.  25),  and  again  in  the  parallel  passage  in 
Chronicles  (a  l:)ook  on  which  the  critics  are  wont  to 
place  no  confidence),  where  they  are  mentioned  by 
their  usual  names  (2  Chron.  viii.  13).  The  celebra- 
tion of  the  Passover  is  mentioned  at  most  twice — 
viz.,  in  a  very  general  way,  if  it  is  this  feast  that 
is  referred  to,  in  Isa.  xxx.  29,  and  again  at  the  re- 
formation in  Josiah's  reign  (2  Kings  xxiii.  21  fl'.) 
Of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  (Succoth)  we  have  four 
notices — viz.,  two  very  doubtful  ones  in  Judges  xxi. 
19  and  1  Sam.  i.  20,  21,  and  another  two  very  general 

1  Hist.  Of  Israel,  p.  13.  2  gee  before,  chap.  xiv.  p.  374. 


154  Early  Religion  of  Israel 

references  in  1  Kings  viii.  2,  xii.  32.  The  obser- 
vance of  tlie  Feast  of  Weeks  is  only  once  mentioned, 
and  that  is  in  2  Chron.  viii.  13,  where  it  is  mentioned 
with  the  other  two.  The  critics  are  in  the  habit  of 
making  liglit  of  the  statement  of  the  chronicler  and 
the  author  of  the  book  of  Kings,'  that  such  celebra- 
tions as  took  place  in  the  times  of  Ilezekiah  and 
Josiah  had  not  been  seen  since  the  times  of  the 
Judges,  or  in  all  the  reigns  of  the  Kings.  This,  they 
says,  amounts  simply  to  the  fact  that  the  Passover, 
as  enjoined  in  the  law,  had  not  been  observed  at  all 
till  the  late  period  to  which  the  narrative  refers.^ 
But  in  view  of  the  paucity  of  references,  and  the 
vagueness  of  the  references  which  have  been  pointed 
out,  we  may  ask.  What  then  was  observed  at  all? 
What  proof  have  we  that  even  the  nature  feasts 
were  kept  up,  on  which  this  new  religious  observance 
might  be  grafted?  In  the  same  way  we  could  argue 
against  the  whole  ''praxis"  of  which  so  much  is 
said.  We  have  no  more  evidence  of  the  existence 
of  a  praxis  which  could  be  subsequently  codified  than 
we  have  of  the  ordinances  which  are  prescril)ed  in 
the  Codes;  and  the  passages  that  may  be  supposed 
to  refer  to  a  cycle  of  nature  feasts  may  as  well  be 
taken  to  refer  to  the  legally  sanctioned  observances. 
III.  Modern  critics,  however,  pronounce  the 
Codes  to  be  so  incompatible  on  vital  points  as  to 
give  indication  that  they  cannot  have  ])een  all  the 

1  2  Chron.  xxx.  5,  xxxv.  18,  with  2  Kinjjs  xxiii.  22.     Of.  Noh.  viii.  17. 

2  Ono  would  havo  oxpwtod  of  thf>  chronlclor,  if  ho  was  such  a  stickler 
for  ceroiiioiiial.  ami  ho  unscrupulouH  in  his  stattMiicuts  of  thoir  oarlior 
obHervauco  as  tho  critics  make  him  out  to  he,  tiiat  li»^  would  have  rather 
pointedly  told  us  how  faithfully  the  Passover  liad  J>een  observed  all 
along,  than  give  this  intimation  that  it  had  been  persistently  neglected. 


The  Three  Codes,  156 

production  of  one  man,  or  tlic  product  of  one  age. 
On  one  subject,  in  particular,  it  is  held  they  give 
clear  evidence  of  a  progress  from  the  simple  to  the 
complex,  of  a  development  which  required  centuries 
to  accomplish,  and  that  subject  is  tlic  legislation 
relating  to  the  place  of  worship.  It  is  maintained 
that  the  book  of  the  Covenant  permits  sacrifice  any- 
where, or  what  amounts  to  that;  that  the  Dcuteron- 
omic  Code  prescribes  one  central  sanctuary;  and 
that  the  Levitical  Code  makes  no  formal  ])rcscription 
on  the  subject,  taking  for  granted  tliat  a  central 
sanctuary  exists,  and  that  worship  is  tlicre  observed. 
These  three  stages  of  legislation,  it  is  maintained, 
correspond  to  three  periods  in  Israel's  history.  Up 
to  the  time  of  Josiah  the  worship  of  the  Banioth  or 
high  places,  up  and  down  the  land,  at  the  holy 
places  consecrated  by  hallowed  associations,  was 
the  rule  and  custom.  Then  came  the  struggle  wliich 
culminated  in  the  victory  in  Josiah's  time,  when  the 
high  places  were  abolished,  and  the  legitimate  wor- 
ship confined  to  the  Temple.  And  finally,  after  the 
Temple  was  no  more,  and  the  people  in  exile  had 
time  to  reflect  on  the  privileges  they  liad  lost,  the 
work  of  gathering  up  the  litual  praxis  that  Imd  been 
observed  at  Jerusalem  was  undertaken;  and  when  the 
restored  community  returned  to  their  native  land, 
they  came  with  a  book  in  their  hand  regulating  tlie 
service  of  the  new  sanctuary,  the  book  being  the 
Levitical  Code. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  great  diflerence  on 
this  view  lies  between  the  book  of  the  Covenant  and 
the  Deuteronomic  Code;  and  as  the  primary  object 


156  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

of  our  inquiry  is  the  earlier  condition  of  things,  the 
pre-prophetic  and  early  i)roplietic  religion,  this  part 
of  the  subject  demands  more  attention.  Tlie  ditier- 
encc  between  the  two  Codes  in  question  is  not  one 
that  resolves  itself  easily  into  a  case  of  develo})ment, 
for  the  introduction  of  the  Deuteronomic  Code  is 
represented  as  having  l)een  effected  in  fact  by  a  re- 
ligious revolution.  A  true  case  of  development 
would  be  that  centralisation  of  worship  was  the  idea 
and  the  ideal  from  the  first,  but  that  it  gained  real- 
isation by  slow  degrees.  If  this  can  be  made  out 
by  a  comparison  of  the  Codes,  and  can  be  shown  to 
be  borne  out  by  the  history,  the  objection  of  modern 
critics  to  the  discrepancy  of  the  Codes  will  have 
comparatively  little  weight;  and  a  development  of 
the  pro])er  kind,  from  germ  to  full  manifestation,  will 
be  established.  It  will  then  not  necessarily  follow 
that  the  Codes  are  far  distant  in  time;  or  if,  in  their 
final  form,  they  belong  to  periods  far  apart,  yet  they 
will  be  seen  in  the  essential  point  to  agree,  and  the 
stronger  emi)hasis  laid  by  the  Deuteronomic  Code 
than  by  the  book  of  the  Covenant  on  this  requirement, 
will  be  explicable  on  the  greater  fulness  of  the 
longer  Code,  on  the  special  object  which  it  aimed  at, 
or  even  on  the  sup])osition  of  a  later  editing  or 
revision  of  it.  I  think  good  reasons  can  \w  given 
for  taking  this  i)osition: — 

(1.)  No  formal  sanction  is  given  by  proj^hctic  men 
before  Josiah's  time  to  a  multiplicity  of  sanctuaries 
in  the  sense  in  which  the  modern  Wi-iters  sj^eak. 
When  Amos  and  FTosea  speak  of  the  worship  per- 
formed at  such  places  as  Bethel  and  Gilgal,  there  is 


Tlie  Three  Codes.  15  Y 

nothing  in  their  words  to  lead  us  to  suppose  that 
these  places  were  regarded  by  them  as  set  apart  by 
any  divine  authority  as  places  of  worship.  They 
were  certainly  invested  with  old  sacred  associations 
(every  country  has  such  places) ;  they  were  certainly, 
in  the  time  of  these  prophets,  resorted  to  for  reli- 
gious purposes  by  the  people  generally,  but  the  pro- 
phets mention  them  for  the  purpose  of  rebuking  the 
idolatrous  or  corrupt  religious  observances  of  which 
they  were  the  seat,  and  never  are  such  expressions 
applied  to  them  as  to  Jerusalem  and  Zion.  It  is 
quite  possible  that,  in  the  northern  kingdom  after 
the  schism,  such  places  as  these,  hallowed  by  patriar- 
chal associations,  were  the  only  places,  or  the  special 
places,  at  which  those  who  wished  to  sacrifice  to 
Jahaveh,  debarred  from  attendance  at  Jerusalem, 
performed  their  worship.  But  as  the  prophets  re- 
cognised only  the  Davidic  house  as  the  legitimate 
depository  of  the  monarchy,  so  they  regarded  Jeru- 
salem as  the  seat  of  Jahaveh,  and  the  place  of  His 
special  manifestation.  The  very  first  words  which 
Amos  utters  to  the  people  of  the  northern  kingdom 
are:  '^Jahaveh  shall  roar  from  Zion,  and  utter  His 
voice  from  Jerusalem; "  ^  words  which  could  only 
mean  that  from  Zion  and  Jerusalem  God's  authority 
was  in  a  special  way  manifested;  that  there,  by  pre- 
eminence. His  presence  was  to  be  sought  and  His 
law  to  be  found,  just  as  the  oracle  said,  ^'  Out  of 
Zion  shall  go  forth  the  law  "  (Isa.  ii.  2;  Micah  iv.  2). 
Whatever  may  be  said  of  sanctuaries  in  the  northern 
kingdom,  there  is  no  sanction  given  to  such  places  as 

1  See  Note  XXVII. 


168  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

of  co-ordinate  authonty  Avitli  Jerusalem.  Much  less 
is  there  any  trace  of  the  recognition  of  any  nuinl)er 
of  places  in  the  southern  kingdom,  as  some  would 
have  us  sui)pose,  which  were  regarded  as  equally 
sacred  with  Jerusalem. 

(2.)  Xor  does  the  history  prove  that  a  multiplicity 
of  sanctuaries,  in  the  modern  sense,  was  a  recognised 
thing  in  the  nation.  When  it  is  said  that  in  the 
stories  of  the  patriarchs  the  writers  represent  the 
fathers  of  the  nation  as  freely  erecting  an  altar 
wherever  they  encamped,  and  that  therefore  the 
writer  of  these  stories  saw  nothing  wrong  in  this 
proceeding,  there  is  surely  a  confusion  of  thought, 
or  a  false  inference,  when  it  is  concluded  that  in  the 
writers'  day  a  multiplicity  of  sanctuaries  was  recog- 
nised. For  how,  indeed,  could  the  patriarchs  have 
sacrificed  at  all,  except  in  the  manner  indicated? 
There  was  to  them  no  law  of  central  sanctuary,  and 
the  writer  of  these  accounts  simply  represents  the 
patriarchs  as  doing  the  only  thing  that  it  was  pos- 
sible for  them  to  do.  If  the  writer  knew  of  tlie  law 
of  a  central  sanctuary,  he  could  not  have  blamed  the* 
patriarchs  for  ignoring  it,  simply  because  it  did  not 
exist  in  their  day.  Of  course  the  contention  is  that 
the  writer  knew  nothing  at  all  about  the  worship  of 
Abraham  and  the  other  patriarchs,  but  simply  pro- 
jected into  the  past  the  ideas  and  practices  of  his 
own  time,  and  made  them  do  sacrifice  at  the  various 
places  which  in  the  writer's  day  were  resorted  to  as 
sanctuaries.  But  all  this  is  mere  assumption.  The 
cases  referred  to  of  Samuel  and  the  Judges,  who  are 
described  as  offering  sacrifices  at  various  places, 


Tlie  Three  Codes.  159 

are  not  more  conclusive  on  the  point  in  hand.  The 
places  at  which  such  sacrifices  are  offered  are  not 
regarded  by  the  writers  as  places  sacred  in  them- 
selves; nay,  they  are  mentioned  generally  only  on 
the  special  occasions  on  which  sacrifice  was  per- 
formed at  them,  and  again  disappear  from  the  his- 
tory. There  is  always  some  special  reason  for  the 
performance  of  the  sacrifice;  there  is  not  one  of 
them  that  is  spoken  of  as  habitually  the  seat  of 
worsliip,  except  Shiloh,  which  was  consecrated  by 
the  presence  of  the  ark,  and  which  was,  so  long  as  it 
stood,  the  central  sanctuary  of  Israel.  That  it  was 
so  regarded  as  the  predecessor  of  Jerusalem  itself  is 
proved  by  the  reference  to  it  so  late  as  the  time  of 
Jeremiah  (vii.  12),  a  reference  wdiich  shows  that 
the  nation  had  regarded  it  as,  for  its  time,  similar  to 
the  sanctuary  at  Jerusalem  in  the  days  of  its  glory. 
(3.)  Moreover,  the  ideal  even  in  the  book  of  the 
Covenant  is  that  of  a  central  sanctuary.  Much  has 
been  made  here  of  the  words,  ' '  In  every  place  where 
I  record  my  name,  I  will  come  unto  thee,  and  I  will 
bless  thee  "  (Exod.  xx.  24),  which  have  been  taken 
to  mean  a  permission  to  worship  indifferently  at  any 
place.  Wellhausen  indeed  makes  a  vshow  of  meet- 
ing the  limitation  expressed  in  the  words  ' '  where  I 
record  my  name  ";  but  all  he  can  say  ^  in  explanation 
of  them  is,  'Hhat  the  spots  where  intercourse  between 
earth  and  heaven  took  place  were  not  willingly  re- 
garded as  arbitararily  chosen,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
were  considered  as  having  been  somehow  or  other 
selected   by   the    Deity   Himself  for   His    service," 

1  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  30. 


160  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

which  is  simply  saying  nothing.  Tlie  promise  here 
given  must  be  taken  to  mean  sometiiing  of  a  posi- 
tive kind,  and  coming  after  the  direction  how  to 
make  the  altar,  must  be  supposed  to  have  some  re- 
ference to  worship.  If,  after  the  manner  of  modern 
critics,  we  were  to  ask  the  polemic  the  words  imply, 
it  might  almost  seem,  on  their  mode  of  reasoning, 
that  the  writer  of  these  w^ords  was  protesting  against 
such  a  centralising  of  worship  as  took  place  in 
Josiah's  days!  ^  At  all  events,  it  seems  strange  that 
such  a  permission  to  worship  anywhere  should  be 
given  in  this  formal  way  at  a  time  when,  it  is  alleged, 
no  one  dreamed  of  doing  anything  else,  for  the  book 
of  the  Covenant  dates  (on  the  hypothesis)  from  the 
earliest  writing  period,  when  the  law  of  a  central 
sanctuary  was  unknown.^  If  the  words  were  meant 
merely  to  sanction  places  which  had  been  elevated 
into  sacredncss  by  association  with  patriarchal  thco- 
phanies  and  the  like,  they  might  be  urged  as  an  ar- 
gument for  the  worship  at  a  certain  number  of  places; 
but  this  is  less  than  what  the  words  express,  and  less 
than  the  example  of  the  patriarchs  would  warrant, 
for  they  seem  to  have  erected  an  altar  as  a  matter  of 
course  wherever  they  went/  And  if  the  words  are 
really  intended  to  mean  that  Jahaveh  may  be  wor- 

'  I  800  that  WolUiauson  notes  that  "  Exod.  xx.  24-26  looks  almost  like 
a  protest  against  the  arrangements  of  the  Temple  of  Solomon,  espe- 
cially v.  26  "—Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  96,  footnote. 

-  S<»  that  we  have  here  something  very  like  "a  positive  statement  of 
the  n(in-»'.\ist<'n(M>  (if  wliat  had  not  yot  mmo  into  being, "  which  Well- 
haiison  thiiik.H  it  ho  unreasonable  to  ask.— Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  36."). 

•'  WrlUiausfn,  howfvor.  says  that  thoy  did  not  worship  at  indifTerent 
and  casual  localities,  but  at  famous  and  iiiuuemorlally  holy  i)la«'«>s  of 
worship;  which  is  Jtist  assuming  his  hypothesis.— Hist,  of  Israel,  p. 
3().  This  is  also  the  view  Slade  takes,  connecting  these  sites  with  tlie 
worshii)  of  ancestors. 


The  Three  Codes.  161 

shipped  anywhere,  in  the  sense  that  '^a  multiplicity 
of  altars  was  assumed  as  a  matter  of  course,"^  it 
may  be  objected  that  this  is  hardly  consistent  with 
the  materialistic  conception  of  the  national  God 
which  is  ascribed  to  Israel.  One  would  have  ex- 
pected that,  at  a  period  when  Jahaveh  was  no  more 
than  a  national  God,  as  the  theory  maintains,  the 
tendency  would  be  to  a  narrow  centralising  of  wor- 
ship, or  at  least  to  a  worship  in  regularly  authorised 
places;  and  that,  when  once  "ethic  monotheism" 
w^as  reached,  a  free  and  more  unrestricted  worship 
would  be  permissible.  But  this  is  another  of  the 
many  perplexities  of  the  modern  theory,  that  the 
development  was  quite  the  other  way. 

As  it  stands,  the  book  of  the  Covenant  is  repre- 
sented as  antecedent  to  the  appointment  of  the 
tabernacle  in  the  wilderness,  and  may  therefore  be 
taken  as  meant  to  state  the  fundamental  idea  of 
worship  that  was  inculcated  upon  Israel.  As  the 
Covenant  precedes  the  law  and  is  not  annulled  by  it 
(Gal.  iii.  1*7),  this  more  spiritual  conception  of  God, 
as  ever  near  to  the  worshipper  who  seeks  Him  in 
the  right  way,  represents  the  idea  that  we  find 
everywhere  held  by  prophetic  men.  It  was  a  pro- 
test, or  polemic,  if  w^e  may  so  say,  against  the  localis- 
ing tendencies  of  other  religions,  an  assurance  that 
the  God  of  Israel  could  and  would  come  near  to  bless 
His  people  in  every  place  where  He  recorded  His 
name.  It  thus  formed  the  guiding  principle  of  pro- 
l)hetic  men,  to  whom,  as  it  would  seem,  the  ordi- 
nances of  ritual  worship  were  ''  a  figure  for  the  time 

1  WelUuiusen,  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  29. 


162  Early  ndlgion  of  hrnel. 

present,"  luid  who  never  allowed  themselves  to  lull 
into  tlie  belief  that  their  God  was  confined  to  teni- 
l)les  made  with  hands.  Had  there  not  been  such  an 
assertion  of  this  fundamental  principle  in  the  very 
earliest  legislation — the  omnipresence  of  Jahaveh — 
we  should  no  doubt  have  been  told  by  modern  critics 
that  this  is  another  proof  that  at  this  early  stage  of 
religious  belief  He  was  conceived  of  as  limited  to 
some  high  mountain,  or  accessible  only  in  some 
special  sanctuary.  The  duty  of  united  worship  in  a 
central  place  is  not  incompatible  with  God's  power 
to  bless  anywhere.  The  book  of  Deuteronomy  itself, 
which  is  said  to  restrict  worship  to  the  Temi)l(?  of 
Jerusalem,  contains  an  injunction  to  set  up  an  altar 
and  offer  sacrifices  between  Ebal  and  Gerizim  (Dent. 
xi.  29;  xxvii.  4,  13).  Still  the  limitation  itands. 
''in  every  i)lace  where  I  record  my  name,""  wliirli 
cannot  simply  mean  "  in  all  places  indifferently. "" 
There  was  to  l)e  some  indication  of  Jahaveh'^^  mime 
given  by  Himself;  and  after  all,  the  old  explanation 
that  saw  a  reference  to  the  movements  of  the  tri))es 
through  the  wilderness,  under  the  direction  of  God, 
who  appointed  their  halting-places,  and  to  a  time 
before  the  tribes  were  a  settled  peo])lc  with  fixed 
dwelling-i)lace,  though  it  does  not  seem  to  exhaust 
the  reference,  is  not  inappropriate.  At  most  the 
words  may  imply  the  acceptable  worshij)  of  Jahaveh 
at  a  number  of  successive  places,  but  they  do  not 
necessarily,  nor  perhaps  possil)ly.  imply  the  re- 
cognition of  simultaneous  sanctuaries  in  dillrrent 
places.  Witli  this  idea  the  whole  tone  of  the  i)as- 
sagc  is  at  variance.     Tlie  i)eopU'  to  w  honi  \Uv  words 


The  Three  Codes.  163 

are  addressed  arc  one  people;  it  is  not  to  indivi- 
duals that  the  permission  or  promise  is  given/ 
Wherever  Israel  as  a  whole  is,  and  wherever  Jaha- 
veh,  their  one  God,  records  His  name,  there  accept- 
able worship  may  be  offered.  The  very  idea  of  the 
unity  of  the  national  God,  and  the  correlative  idea 
of  the  unity  of  His  people,  imply  a  unity  of  worship 
and  of  sanctuary.  The  corporate  reference  is  con- 
firmed by  the  fact  that  this  same  book  of  the  Cove- 
nant ordains  that  three  times  in  the  year  all  the 
males  should  appear  before  Jahaveh.  It  is  incon- 
sistent with  the  fundamental  ideas  of  the  unity  of 
the  tribes  at  that  early  time  to  suppose  that  such  a 
command  could  mean  that  three  times  in  the  year  all 
the  males  were  to  make  a  pilgrimage  to  some  shrine 
or  other,  some  tomb  or  holy  place  of  a  tribal  ances- 
tor, and  thus  fulfil  the  command  here  given.  The 
mere  possession  of  a  sacred  ark,  with  a  tent  for  its 
habitation,  and  these  as  the  common  possession  of  all 
the  tribes,  was  in  itself  a  centralising  of  worship. 
Though  the  existence  of  a  tabernacle  such  as  is 
described  in  the  Pentateuch  is  denied  by  the  modern 
historians,  it  is  not  denied  that  an  ark,  and  a  tent 
for  its  covering,  were  in  the  possession  of  Israel, 
and  held  in  general  regard  in  connection  with  the 

I  The  ten  commandments,  says  a  very  docile  pupil  of  Wellhausen. 
"  are  not  addressed  to  individuals,  but  to  a  nation.  The  '  thou  *  to 
whom  they  speak  is  the  peojile  of  Israel,  and  they  are  prefaced  by  a 
sentence  in  which  Jehovah  states  how  it  is  His  right  to  give  laws  to 
Israel  "  (Allan  Menzles,  National  Keligion,  p.  42).  Wellhausen  would 
have  us  believe  that  the  notion  of  the  "  congregation  "  as  a  sacred  body 
was  "foreign  to  Hebrew  antiquity,  but  runs  through  the  Priestly  Code 
from  beginning  to  end  "  (Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  78).  I  think  we  have  it  here 
clearly  marked  in  the  "  thou  "  of  the  book  of  the  Covenant  in  formal 
connection  with  worship  (comp.  above,  p.  303  f.)  But  indeed  it  was 
present  in  essence  in  the  first  self -consciousness  of  Israel  as  Jahaveh's 
people. 


164  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

Jahavcli  religion.  Nor  can  it  be  denied  that  Shiloli 
was  a  sanctuary  of  a  quite  special  importance  in  the 
times  of  the  Judges  and  Samuel,  and  no  one  who  l)e- 
lieves  that  the  Hebrew  writers  knew  anything  at  all 
of  their  history  will  accept  the  assumption  that  the 
Temple  was  merely  the  court  sanctuary  of  the  king- 
dom of  Judah,  or  even  only  one  of  many  co-ordinate 
holy  places  in  that  kingdom.  Wellhausen  says  ^ 
that  the  principle  ''one  God,  one  sanctuary"  is  the 
idea  of  the  Priestly  Code.  It  is,  in  point  of  fact,  the 
idea  of  the  book  of  the  Covenant  also,  though  neither 
in  the  one  nor  in  the  other  is  it  held  to  mean  that 
the  one  God  was  only  present,  and  could  only  mani- 
fest His  power  at  one  particular  spot.  ^^  An  altar 
Shalt  thou  make  to  me,"  the  command  runs,  not 
''  altars."  The  altar  of  God  is  always  only  one.  It 
ceases  to  be  an  altar  the  moment  His  people  and 
His  manifestation  to  them  are  at  another  place. 
It  is  not  the  sanctity  of  the  place  that  constitutes 
the  sanctity  of  the  altar,  but  the  presence  of  Him 
who  makes  His  name  manifest.  It  is  remarkable 
that  we  do  not  find  in  all  the  Old  Testament  such  a 
divine  utterance  as  ''my  altars";  and  only  twice 
does  the  expression  "Thy  altars,"  addressed  to 
God,  occur.  It  is  found  in  Elijah's  complaint, 
which  refers  to  northern  Israel,  at  a  time  when  the 
legitimate  worship  of  Jerusalem  was  excluded;  and 
in  Psalm  Ixxxiv.,  where  it  again  occurs,  no  infer- 
ence can  be  drawn  from  it.  On  the  other  hand, 
Hosea  says  distinctly,  ''Ephraim  hath  multiplied 
altars  to  sin"  (Ilosea  viii.  11). 

1  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  34. 


The  TJiree  Codes.  165 

I  think,  tlicreforc,  it  is  not  i)rovcd  that  the  book  of 
the  Covenant  allows  worship  at  any  indefinite  number 
of  places  as  co-ordinate  sanctuaries;  nor  does  the 
history  show  that  this  was  recognised  by  the  re- 
ligious leaders  of  the  nation.  Previous  to  the  build- 
ing of  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem,  and  especially  Avhen 
the  ark  was  removed  from  Shiloh,  we  find  what  may 
be  called  a  freer  or  less  regulated  practice;  and  this 
was  the  result  of  the  exigencies  of  the  period.  But 
from  the  erection  of  the  Temple,  not  only  is  there  no 
proof  that  any  other  sanctuary  was  allowed,  but 
there  are  positive  indications  that  that  was  regarded 
as  the  one  authoritative  place  of  worship  in  the 
sense  in  which  we  here  speak.  The  practice  in  the 
northern  kingdom  proves  nothing,  for  all  the  asser- 
tions of  modern  writers  to  the  effect  that  the  history 
mainly  evolved  itself  there,  and  that  the  kingdom  of 
Judah  counts  for  little,  are  opposed  to  the  spirit  and 
distinct  utterances  of  the  earliest  prophets.  Not 
less  are  they  inconsistent  with  the  earliest  legisla- 
tion. The  book  of  the  Covenant,  at  whatever  time 
written,  and  whether  composed  in  the  northern  or 
the  southern  kingdom,  makes  no  distinction  between 
the  two,  and  lays  down  one  law  for  all  Israel.  The 
schism  of  the  ten  tribes  was  a  breaking  away  from 
national  unity  and  from  the  national  God;  and  no 
proof  can  be  adduced  that  prophetic  men  looked 
with  anything  but  disfavour  on  the  idolatrous  wor- 
ship that  was  practised  in  the  southern  kingdom, 
whether  at  Jerusalem  or  at  local  sanctuaries. 


CHAPTER  XYI. 

THE  LAW-BOOKS. 

Distinction  of  Books  and  Codes — Wellhausen's  personal  ex- 
•perience — The  hypothesis  of  Graf;  not  the  result  of  criti- 
cism— TJie  great  objection  to  it  its  assumption  of  the  ficti- 
tious character  of  the  history,  thus  leaving  no  solid 
materials  for  a  credible  history — /.  The  book  of  Deutero- 
nomy is  neither  (1)  p>seudonymous  7ior  (2)  .fictitious — 11. 
The  books  containing  the  Levitical  Code — (1)  The  position 
that  Ezekiel  2^cived  the  way  for  this  Code — (2)  T?ie  i)ious 
remnant  and  the  reformation  ideas — (3)  Fictitious  history 
in  an  aggravated  form — (4)  The  literary  form  of  this 
Code — Multiplicity  of  sources  a  proof  of  long-contiJiued 
literary  activity — But  the  main  course  of  the  history 
rests  on  its  oicn  independent  proofs. 

In  the  preceding  chapters  we  have  seen  reasons  for 
concluding  that  the  modern  theory  does  not  suffi- 
ciently account  for  the  persistent  ascription  of  law 
and  religious  ordinance  to  Moses;  that  it  fails  to 
exhibit  the  transition  from  natural  to  religious  ob- 
servance, and  from  oral  to  authoritative  written  law; 
that  its  argument  from  silence  tells  as  much  against 
its  own  assumption  as  against  the  Biblical  view;  and 
that  its  sharp  distinction  of  the  Codes  in  essential 
matters  is  not  well  founded.  Witli  the  literary  fates 
of  the  various  law-codes  we  arc  not  much  concerned, 


The  Laio-Books.  167 

because  this  is  a  subject  on  wliich  the  Biblical  theory, 
which  it  is  our  main  purpose  to  test,  leaves  great 
latitude  for  different  views;  and  the  same  may  be 
said  of  the  question  of  the  composition  of  books. 
We  must,  however,  look  somewhat  particularly  into 
the  relation  of  the  law-books  to  the  Codes  and  to 
the  general  history;  for  in  regard  to  this  matter  the 
Biblical  theory  and  the  modern  are  radically  at 
variance  in  important  points. 

Wellhausen  in  one  passage  ^  gives  us  an  interest- 
ing piece  of  his  own  personal  experience.  He  tells 
us  that  in  his  early  student  days  he  ^'  was  attracted 
by  the  stories  of  Saul  and  David,  Ahab  and  Elijah;  " 
that  the  discourses  of  Amos  and  Isaiah  laid  strong 
hold  on  him,  and  that  he  read  himself  well  into  the 
prophetic  and  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament; 
but  that  all  the  time  he  "  was  troubled  with  a  bad 
conscience,  as  if  he  were  beginning  with  the  roof 
instead  of  the  foundation."  At  last  he  took  courage, 
and  made  his  way  through  the  books  of  Exodus, 
Leviticus,  and  Numbers;  but  looked  in  vain  for  the 
light  which  he  expected  these  would  shed  on  the 
historical  and  prophetical  books.  ''At  last,"  he 
saj's,  ''  in  the  course  of  a  casual  visit  in  Gottingcn 
in  the  summer  of  1867,  I  learned  through  Ritschl 
that  Karl  Heinrich  Graf  placed  the  law  later  than 
the  prophets,  and,  almost  without  knowing  his  rea- 
sons for  the  hypothesis,  I  was  prepared  to  accept  it; 
I  readily  acknowledged  to  myself  the  possibility  of 
understanding  Hebrew  antiquity  without  the  book 
of  the  Torah." 

J  Hist,  of  Israel,  pp.  a,  4. 


168  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

So  far  as  his  experience  in  tlie  reading  of  Scripture 
goes,  there  is  nothing  very  peculiar  in  it.  I  suppose 
that  few  of  those  who  have  formed  for  themselves 
any  defined  view  of  Bible  history,  have  acquired  this 
by  reading  through  the  law-books  before  approach- 
ing those  that  are  historical.  He  tells  us  nothing 
of  his  experience  in  regard  to  the  book  of  Genesis, 
whose  stories  of  the  patriarchs,  one  would  have 
thought,  would  have  as  powerfully  attracted  the 
young  student  as  the  history  of  Saul  and  David;  and 
it  is  difficult  to  fancy  what  idea  he  could  have  ob- 
tained of  even  the  historical  and  prophetical  books, 
without  accepting  the  underlying  assumption  of 
these  books  that  the  history  went  back  to  the  pa- 
triarchal period.  The  whole  history  hangs  in  the 
air,  if  we  begin  with  Saul  and  David — implying,  as 
it  does,  a  great  deal  for  which  we  must  turn  to  the 
writings  which  Wellhausen  must  include  in  his  ex- 
pression, ^Hhebookof  the  Torah."  But  in  using 
this  expression,  and  in  his  reference  to  the  theory  of 
Graf  which  he  says  he  found  himself  ready  to  accept, 
he  leads  the  unwary  reader  to  confuse  two  things 
which  ought  to  be  kept  distinct,  and  to  jump  to  a 
conclusion  which  is  not  warranted  by  the  experience 
which  he  relates. 

Our  examination  of  the  early  prophetical  writings, 
and  of  the  histories  which  are  said  to  be  of  about  the 
same  date,  always  threw  us  back  upon  an  antecedent 
history,  and  gave  at  least  a  strong  presumption  of 
the  truth  of  the  narrative  contained  in  tlie  books  of 
the  Pentateuch.  Yet  for  the  fundamental  facts  and 
main  course  of  the  history  we  did  not  require    to 


The  Laiv-Books.  169 

refer  to  the  Pentateuchal  laws,  although  we  found  a 
coherence  and  consistency  between  the  accounts 
contained  in  the  two  sets  of  books.  The  history, 
in  fact,  does  not  turn  upon  laws  and  the  observance 
of  ceremonies,  and  so  far  it  is  true,  as  Wellhausen 
says  he  experienced  it,  that  the  history  is  intelligible 
without  the  Torah.  But  in  saying  ' '  the  book  of  the 
Torah,"  if  by  that  he  means  the  whole  Pentateuch, 
and  not  merely  the  legal  part  of  it,  it  is  not  the  case 
that  the  history  is  thus  intelligible. 

The  law-books  of  the  Pentateuch,  as  is  well  known, 
exhibit  two  component  elements, — narrative  and 
legislation;  and  it  has  been  found  impossible  by 
literary  analysis  to  separate  them.  Whether  the 
two  parts  originally  came  from  different  hands  or 
not,  m  part  or  in  whole,  they  are  so  inextricably 
blended  or  woven  together  that  it  has  to  be  con- 
fessed they  must  go  together.  That  is  to  say,  the 
narratives  imply  that  the  laws  were  given  under 
historical  circumstances,  and  the  laws  imply  the 
circumstances  under  which  they  were  given.  If, 
then,  we  are  satisfied  with  the  testimony  given  by 
later  writers  to  the  history;  if,  in  other  words,  we 
take  the  references  to  earlier  times  contained  in  the 
writings  of  the  eighth  and  ninth  centuries  as  con- 
firming, in  the  main,  the  narrative  of  the  Pentateuch, 
we  might  conclude  tliat  the  laws,  which  are  by  con- 
fession bound  so  closely  in  the  bundle  of  narrative 
as  to  be  inseparable  from  it,  are  also  the  laws  and 
statutes  to  which  the  prophets  appeal.  The  laws 
would  go  with  the  narrative,  in  which  they  are  en- 
closed.    And  this  is  what  the  Old  Testament  writers 


170  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

take  for  granted.  The  reverse  process,  however, 
since  the  time  of  Graf,  has  been  followed  by  those 
who  advocate  his  theory.  They  say  the  narratives 
must  follow  the  laws.  How  this  conclusion  was 
reached,  and  what  it  involves,  must  now  be  con- 
sidered. 

Graf  at  first  attempted  to  make  a  separation  be- 
tween the  legislation  and  the  accompanying  history 
contained  in  the  Pentateuch;  and  having  proved  to 
his  own  satisfaction  that  the  narratives  attached  to 
the  Levitical  Code  were  implied  in  the  book  of 
Deuteronomy,  and  known  to  the  writer  of  the  latter, 
he  said  that  the  narratives  were  early,  while  the 
legislation  was  late.  Being,  however,  afterwards 
convinced  that  the  two  elements  were  inseparable, 
he  was  clearly  in  a  dilemma,  from  which  be  adopted 
a  remarkable  mode  of  escape.  He  simply  said  that 
as  the  laws  had  been  proved  to  be  of  late  origin,  the 
narratives  must  also  be  of  late  composition — throw- 
ing over  entirely  the  proofs  which  he  had  before 
considered  sufiicient  to  show  that  the  narratives  of 
the  Lcviticaf  books  were  older  than  Deuteronomy, 
and  introducing  a  fashion  of  regarding  the  contents 
of  these  books  which  is  at  once  novel  and  startling. 
For  if  the  laws  of  the  Levitical  Code  are  late  in  the 
literal  sense  that  they  became  laws  at  a  period  as 
late  as  Ezra,  the  narratives  which  accompany  them 
and  describe  in  detail  in  regard  to  many  of  them  the 
manner  in  which  they  were  promulgated  by  Moses, 
cannot  be  true  history  at  all:  the  events  related  as 
the  historical  setting  of  the  laws  must  be  nothing 
else  than  fictitious.     The  onlv  thinur  that  can  be  said 


The  Law-Books.  171 

in  their  favour  is,  that  they  were  invented  for  the 
good  purpose  of  confirming  and  sanctioning  the  laws, 
by  ascribing  them  to  Moses,  to  whom  the  national 
tradition  looked  back  as  the  great  originator  of  law 
in  Israel. 

The  first  thing  that  strikes  one  here  is  that  the 
theory  is  not  the  result  of  a  sustained  and  uniform 
line  of  criticism.  It  was  a  volte-face.  Graf  had  sat- 
isfied himself  that  the  narrative  parts  of  the  Penta- 
teuch w^re  early,  and  were  referred  to  or  implied  in 
pre-exilian  writings.  If  he  was  equally  satisfied 
that  the  laws  were  exilic,  or  post-exilic,  and  yet 
were  inseparable  from  the  narrative,  the  proper  con- 
clusion was  that  his  critical  processes  were  incor- 
rect somewhere,  and  he  ought  to  have  searched  for 
the  error.  One  would  think  that  the  national  testi- 
mony to  a  series  of  historical  facts  would  be  more 
clear  than  the  recollection  of  a  body  of  laws,  and 
that  laws  were  more  liable  to  change  by  usage  than 
the  national  testimony  to  vary  in  regard  to  funda- 
mental facts  of  history.  At  all  events,  to  say 
bluntly  that  the  narratives  must  go  with  the  laws  is 
no  more  a  process  of  criticism  than  to  say  that  the 
laws  must  go  with  the  history.  It  is  therefore  inac- 
curate to  describe  the  position  of  Graf  as  a  conclu- 
sion of  criticism.  It  was  simply  a  hypothesis  to 
evade  a  difiiculty  in  which  criticism  had  landed 
him. 

And  then,  when  it  is  considered  what  is  implied 
in  the  position  that  the  narratives  must  go  with  the 
laws,  it  cannot  but  be  admitted  that  the  hypothesis 
is  so  far-reaching  and  revolutionary  that  it  should  be 


112  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

accepted  only  when  every  other  explanation  of  the 
phenomena  fails.  For  it  amounts  to  a  thorough  dis- 
crediting of  the  historical  value  of  the  narratives  of 
these  books  with  which  the  laws  are  so  closely  inter- 
woven; and  to  an  ascription  of  fiction,  if  not  fraud, 
to  the  writers,  which  will  render  it  extremely  diffi- 
cult for  sober  criticism  to  rely  upon  any  testimony 
which  is  borne  by  the  Hebrew  writers  to  the  facts 
of  their  national  history.  So  that  here  again,  when 
pushed  home  to  its  central  position,  we  find  that  the 
modern  view,  claiming  to  be  strictly  critical,  in 
reality  throws  discredit  on  the  documents  which  it 
starts  to  criticise,^  and  which  are  the  only  sources 
available  for  obtaining  information  regarding  the 
history  which  is  to  be  described. 

But  there  is  no  necessity,  except  that  imposed  by 
an  unyielding  hypothesis,  for  this  last  resource.  If 
laws  were  not  given  by  Moses,  then  certainly  any 
narratives  that  describe  them  as  so  given  must  be 
false.  But  if  Moses  did  deliver  a  body  of  laws  to 
his  people,  then  even  if  the  laws,  as  they  stand,  in- 
dicate divergency,  even  if  they  underwent  modifica- 
tion, even  if  the  codes  or  the  books,  or  both,  are  of 
much  later  composition,  in  their  existing  forms,  than 
the  time  of  Moses,  we  may  still  respect  the  bona  fides 
of  the  writers  of  the  books,  and  maintain  them  as 
substantially  true  history. 

I.  To  begin  with  the  book  of  Deuteronomy.  Some 
who  l)elieve  that  this  book  is  of  late  date,  written  at 
the  time  of  Josiah  in  order  to  bring  about  a  reforma- 
tion, and  yet  seek  to  maintain  the  bona  fides  of  the 

1  Compare  above,  chap.  vl.  p.  149  f . 


Hie  Laiu-Books.  1Y3 

writer,  are  in  the  habit  of  saying  that  the  book  is 
an  example  of  pseudonymous  composition.  Briggs, 
for  example/  has  argued  at  length  and  ingeniously 
to  show  that  there  is  nothing  unreasonable  in  the 
supposition  of  pseudonymous  literature  in  the  Bible, 
and  by  reference  to  the  book  of  Ecclesiastes  has 
tried  to  save  this  book  of  Deuteronomy  from  the 
category  of  forgery  or  fiction.  But  in  point  of  fact, 
the  book  is  not  pseudonymous  in  the  same  way  that 
Ecclesiastes  is.  The  latter  book,  except  the  heading 
at  the  beginning  and  the  epilogue  (chap.  xii.  9  ff.)  at 
the  end,  is  all  written  in  one  person.  ''I,  the 
preacher,"  did  so  and  so  throughout;  and  his  per- 
sonality, ^'  son  of  David,"  and  magnificence,  are  so 
accentuated  as  to  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  Solomon 
is  meant.  But  the  writer  by  saying,  "  was  king  over 
Israel  in  Jerusalem,"  lets  us  at  the  outset  into  his 
secret,  which  is  simply  this,  that  he  is  writing  in  the 
name  of  Solomon,  to  represent  what  might  have 
been  Solomon's  reflections  upon  life.  There  is  not 
only  no  intent  to  deceive,  but  there  is  scarcely  the 
possibility  of  deception.  The  circumstances  of  a 
historical  kind  that  are  introduced  are  so  few  and  so 
general  that  we  are  not  misled  or  misinformed  as  to 
matters  of  fact:  all  the  rest  is  meditation,  moralis- 
ing, and  the  scheme  of  the  book  is  so  far  transparent. 
But  it  is  quite   different  with   the   book   of  Deu- 

1  Biblical  Study  (1887),  p.  223  ff.  He  appeals  also,  among  others,  to 
Robertson  Smith,  "  who  uses  the  term  legal  fiction  as  a  variety  of 
literary  fiction  "  (see  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church,  p.  385). 
What  is  there  described,  however,  as  "  found  more  convenient  to 
present  the  new  law  in  a  form  which  enables  it  to  be  treated  as  an  In- 
tegral i^art  of  the  old  legislation,  "  though  probably  applicable  to  the 
present  form  in  which  the  collections  of  laws  appear,  does  not  seem  to 
cover  the  case  of  the  honk  of  Deuteronomy  with  which  we  are  concerned. 
Compare  Cheyne,  Jeremiah,  His  Life  and  Times,  p.  77. 


174  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

teronomy.  As  a  book,  it  docs  not  profess  to  be 
written  by  Moses;  it  is,  in  fact,  one  of  the  many 
anonymous  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  The  writer, 
whoever  he  was,  and  at  whatever  time  he  lived, 
tells  us  certain  things  that  Moses  did,  and  especially 
produces  long  addresses  which  Moses  is  said  to  have 
uttered.  These  long  speeches,  however,  are  all  set 
in  a  historical  framework;  and  if  the  framework  is 
not  historical,  the  book  is  more  than  pseudonymou- 
— it  is  pseudo-historical.  The  speeches  by  them- 
selves might  be  taken  to  fall  into  the  category  of 
the  book  of  Ecclesiastes,  where  the  preacher  is  made 
to  give  the  thoughts  that  passed  through  his  mind. 
But  if  the  writer,  who  has  set  these  speeches  down 
at  definite  times  and  under  definite  circumstances, 
is  not  correct  as  to  the  time  and  circumstances,  or 
if  the  events  he  weaves  into  the  speeches  never  oc- 
curred, he  is  manufacturing  these,  not  studying  to 
reproduce  them  by  historical  imagination.  The 
book  declares  that  at  a  certain  time,  and  under  cer- 
tain circumstances,  Moses  gathered  the  people  and 
addressed  to  them  long  speeches  recalling  certain 
facts.  If  Moses  never  did  such  a  thing,  and  if  such 
facts  never  occurred,  the  book  must  be  simply  de- 
scribed as  unhistorical  or  fictitious. 

And  yet  I  do  not  think  it  is  to  be  so  regarded. 
Whoever  was  the  author,  and  whatever  time  may  be 
assigned  for  its  composition,  this  is  Avhat  the  book 
presents  to  us.  It  declares  that  Moses  at  the  close 
of  the  wilderness  journey,  when  the  people  were 
ready  to  cross  the  Jordan,  made  formal  addresses 
to  them,  in  which  he  recounted  the  events  of  their 


The  Laiu-Books.  175 

past  liistory,  recapitulated  the  laws  which  he  had 
laid  down  for  their  guidance,  and  warned  them 
against  the  temptations  to  which  they  would  be  par- 
ticularly exposed  in  Canaan;  threatening  them,  in 
case  of  disobedience,  with  God's  judgments,  and 
promising  them,  in  case  of  obedience,  His  blessing. 
Now,  if  Moses  sustained  anything  at  all  like  the  office 
which  is  invariably  ascribed  to  him  in  the  books  of 
the  Old  Testament;  if  he  was  the  leader  of  the  peo- 
ple to  the  borders  of  Canaan,  the  founder  of  their 
national  constitution,  the  lawgiver  in  any  positive 
and  definite  sense, — it  was  the  most  natural  thing  in 
the  world  that  he  should,  at  the  close  of  his  life, 
have  given  such  parting  counsels  and  addresses  to 
the  people  whose  history  was  so  closely  bound  up 
with  his  own  life's  work.  That  is  to  say,  the  situa- 
tion which  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  presents  to  us 
is  a  situation  not  in  itself  improbable,  but  on  every 
ground  exceedingly  probable;  and  tlie  statement  by 
the  writer  of  the  book  that  this  situation  presented 
itself  is  such  that  it  would  be  accepted  as  matter 
of  fact  in  any  secular  historian.  Further,  if  a 
writer,  whether  early  or  late,  set  himself  to  tell  all 
this,  he  could  only  do  so  in  the  form  in  which  the 
book  of  Deuteronomy  comes  before  us. 

Let  us  not  be  misled  by  the  direct  form  in  which 
these  speeches  are  expressed.  Wellhausen,  in  one 
place,  ^  speaks  contemptuously  of  our  being  treated 
to  long  addresses  instead  of  historical  details.  It 
is  somewhat  remarkable  that  he,  and  many  like- 
minded,  have  not  taken  note  of  the  peculiarity  of 

^  History  of  Israel,  p.  340. 


1 76  Early  Religio7i  of  Israel. 

the  Hebrew  language,  that  it  has  not  developed 
what  we  call  the  indirect  speech — a  peculiarity 
which  necessitates  the  regular  introduction  of 
speeches  or  addresses.  Take  such  a  passage  as  the 
following:  When  the  children  of  Israel,  after  their 
long  wanderings  in  tlie  desert,  were  on  the  point  of 
crossing  the  Jordan  to  take  possession  of  the  land  to 
which  they  had  looked  forward  as  their  inheritance, 
Moses,  who  had  been  their  constant  guide  and  legis- 
lator for  forty  years,  seeing  that  the  close  of  his  life 
was  near,  and  solicitous  for  the  welfare  of  the  people 
whom  he  had  hitherto  guided,  assembled  them  about 
him,  and  in  various  addresses  recapitulated  the 
striking  events  of  their  past  history,  dwelling  par- 
ticularly on  details  that  exhibited  most  clearly  the 
guiding  hand  of  God  and  the  fallibility  and  frailty 
of  Israel,  restated  the  fundamental  principles  on 
wdiich  the  nation  w^as  constituted,  and  by  warning 
and  promise  directed  them  to  the  dangers  that  lay 
in  the  future  if  they  proved  unfaithful,  and  to  th© 
blessings  in  store  for  them  if  they  adhered  to  alle- 
giance to  their  national  God.  Let  any  professor  of 
Hebrew  set  himself  to  state  in  idiomatic  Hebrew 
what  all  this  implies  in  detail,  and  he  will  be  bound 
to  state  it  just  as  it  is  put  down  in  this  book.  The 
absence  of  the  indirect  speech  in  Hebrew  can  be 
made  quite  clear  to  the  English  reader  by  a  refer- 
ence to  any  page  of  the  historical  books.  If  a  writer 
wishes  to  say  that  one  person  made  a  verbal  com- 
munication to  another,  he  must  say,  * '  So-and-so 
spake  to  So-and-so,  saying,"  and  must  give  the  ip- 
sissima  verba.     And    yet,    strictly    speaking,    the 


Tlie  Law-Books.  177 

writer  is  not  to  be  taken  as  vouching  for  the  actual 
words  spoken.  He  is  simply  producing,  in  the  only 
way  that  the  laws  of  his  language  allow  him  to  pro- 
duce, the  substance  of  the  thing  said;  and  from 
beginning  to  end  of  the  Old  Testament  writings,  the 
language  remained  at  that  stage,  only  the  faintest 
attempts  to  pass  beyond  it  being  visible.  It  is  part 
of  that  direct,  graphic  style  of  Old  Testament  Scrip- 
ture, which  is  of  wide  extent,  and  is  based  on  the 
intuitive,  presentative  mode  of  thought  of  the  sacred 
Avriters,  who  must  describe  a  scene  by  painting  it 
and  its  actors,  with  their  words  and  gestures,  and 
reproduce  a  communication  in  the  actual  words  sup- 
posed to  have  been  uttered.^ 

It  is  easy  to  see  now  how  a  writer,  soon  after  or 
long  after  Moses,  recalling  the  events  which  we  may 
suppose  tradition  preserved  in  the  nation's  mind, 
and  using  we  know  not  what  documents,  produced 
a  book  like  Deuteronomy.  The  situation  was  not 
one  of  active  events,  but  of  reflective  pause  and  con- 
sideration, preparatory  to  the  arduous  work  of  the 
contest,  and  hence  the  literary  form  of  the  book  is 
difierent  from  that  of  the  other  books  of  the  Penta- 
teuch. Not  by  any  fiction,  not  by  inventing  a  story 
for  a  purpose,  but  in  perfect  good  faith,  he  repre- 
sents the  aged  lawgiver,  surrounded  by  the  people 
whose  welfare  lay  so  much  at  his  heart,  giving  them 
such  counsel,  warning,  and  encouragement  as  were 
suited  to  their  circumstances.  It  was  but  natural 
that  a  writer,  setting  himself  to  such  a  task,  should 

1  I  may  bo  allowed  In  this  connection  to  refer  to  a  paper  on  the 
"  Graphic  Element  in  the  Old  Testament  "  in  the  Expositor,  second 
series,  vol.  vi.  p,  241  ff. 


178  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

mingle  iniich  of  his  own  in  the  composition.  No 
writer  can  divest  himself  of  his  own  personality,  or 
write  entirely  without  reference  to  the  time  in  which 
he  lives.  And  a  writer  succeeding  Moses,  at  a 
greater  or  less  interval,  could  not  but  sec  the  devel- 
opment of  events  which  were  only  in  germ  in  Moses' 
time,  and  could  not  help  representing  them  more  or 
less  in  their  developed  form.  In  this  sense,  and  to 
this  extent,  it  is  true  that  any  late  writer  writes 
under  the  influence  of  later  ideas;  and  the  objection 
taken  ])y  critical  writers  to  such  a  course  is  an  ob- 
jection that  would  apply  to  all  writing  of  history. 
But  between  this — which  is  done  in  absolute  good 
faith — and  the  wholesale  manufacturing  of  incidents 
and  situations,  there  is  all  the  difference  between 
history  and  fiction.  We  cannot  think  of  such  a 
writer  imagining  his  events  so  as  to  represent 
Moses  recapitulating  a  series  of  occurrences  that 
(lid  not  take  place,  or  which  the  wTiter  did  not 
firmly  believe  did  take  place,  or  ascribing  to  him 
laws  which  he  did  not  consider  to  have  been  in  their 
form  or  substance  propounded  to  the  people  whom 
Moses  addressed. 

Laws  are  indeed,  as  has  been  already  said,  sub- 
ject to  change  with  changing  circumstances,  and 
observances  are  liable  to  assume  new  phases  to  meet 
new  emergencies.  A  law,  given  at  first  with  a 
general  reference,  may  come  face  to  face  with  actual 
states  of  society  wiiich  force  it  to  take  a  more  defi- 
nite shape  to  meet  the  cases  that  have  arisen.  This 
is  development  of  law,  but  it  is  not  change  of  the 
substance   of  the   law.     Now  if,   as  is  surely  most 


The  Laiv-Books.  179 

reasonable  to  assume,  Moses  did  warn  his  people 
against  the  idolatries  of  the  nations  of  Canaan,  and 
enjoin  them  to  maintain  their  own  religious  faith 
and  observances,  the  force  of  such  warnings  and 
admonitions  would  be  accentuated  when  the  actual 
dangers  emerged;  the  law  would  be  seen  in  its  far- 
ther reference,  and  assume  a  more  specific  and  pre- 
cise form  in  the  minds  ot  those  who  looked  at  it. 
If,  then,  a  later  writer,  believing  in  all  good  faith 
that  Moses  gave  such  admonitions,  had  before  his 
eyes  the  actual  dangers  which  the  lawgiver  had  in  a 
general  way  foreseen,  he  could  not  help,  in  restating 
the  laws,  giving  them  a  sharper  and  more  incisive 
point;  but  he  was  not  thereby  either  changing  or 
inventing  a  law.  This  would  be  to  develop  law  in  the 
spirit  of  the  Mosaic  legislation,  on  the  understand- 
ing, however,  that  there  was  a  positive  Mosaic  leg- 
islation to  be  developed.  And  all  this  again,  it 
seems  to  me,  is  compatible  with  the  good  faith  of 
the  writer  and  with  the  substantial  historical  accu- 
racy of  his  narrative.  It  is,  however,  quite  a  differ- 
ent thing  from  the  supposition  that  the  writer,  after 
he  had  seen  certain  dangers  and  abuses  emerge,  set 
himself  to  devise  a  law  which  was  quite  new,  in 
order  to  meet  these,  and  deliberately  contrived  a 
whole  set  of  historical  occurrences,  in  which  it  was 
feigned  that  the  laws  were  given  forth  in  Mosaic 
times. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  those  who  make  the 
Code  of  Deuteronomy  late,  usually  say  that  the 
writer  drew  up  laws  in  the  spirit  of  the  Mosaic  leg- 
islation; and  even  Wellhausen  says  that  the  book  of 


180  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

''Deuteronomy  presupposes  earlier  attempts  of  this 
kind,  and  borrows  its  materials  largely  from  them."  ' 
The  Biblical  account  of  the  matter  is,  that  Moses 
actually  wrote  down  the  laws  contained  in  the  book. 
There  was,  in  other  words,  a  Deuteronomic  Code 
prior  to  the  book  of  Deuteronomy;  this  is  what  the 
critics  themselves  say,  and  what  the  book  itself  says. 
The  question  is,  Did  the  Code,  in  a  written  form 
and  to  an  appreciable  extent,  come  from  Moses  him- 
self ?  On  the  one  side  we  have  these  vague  admis- 
sions as  to  the  '^  spirit  of  the  Mosaic  legislation" 
(and  how  was  a  late  writer  to  know  what  that  spirit 
was  unless  by  positive  enactment'/),  and  the  equally 
vague  admission  of  '^ former  attempts,"  without 
positive  specification  of  the  time  and  extent  of  the 
attempts  that  were  made.  On  the  other  hand,  we 
have  the  positive  statement  that  Moses,  at  his  death, 
left  a  body  of  laws  such  as  are  included  in  the  book 
of  Deuteronomy.  That  we  have  the  very  words  of 
the  laws  as  he  penned  them,  the  custom  of  literary 
composition,  and  the  ordinary  fates  of  legislative 
codes,  show  us  we  are  not  forced  to  suppose.  What 
became  of  the  actual  collection  of  laws,  beyond  the 
fact  that  it  was  delivered  to  the  Levites,  and 
deposited  in  the  side  of  the  ark,*  we  are  not  told. 
And  moreover,  at  what  time  and  by  whose  hands 
the  whole  of  the  book  of  Deuteronomy,  as  we  now 
have  it,  was  composed,  is  a  matter  which  literary 
criticism  alone  cannot  decide.  It  is  only  by  infer- 
ences, not  very  clear  in  themselves,  that  the  conclu- 
sion is  reached  that  the  book  belongs  to  the  age  of 

1  Hist,  ol  Israel,  p.  402.    See  above,  p.  399  t.        >  Deut.  zxxL  26. 


The  Law-Books.  181 

Josiah;  but  even  if,  as  a  book,  it  belongs  to  that  age, 
or  later,  I  think  the  considerations  advanced  will 
show  how  it  may  be  still  historical  and  trustworthy, 
exiiibiting  at  once  the  working  ot  a  later  develop- 
ment of  old  principfes,  and  preserving  also — not 
inventing  for  the  occasion — elements  which  are 
ancient  and  Mosaic/ 

II.  01  the  other  law-books,  we  have  to  deal 
particularly  with  those  that  embody  the  Levitical 
Code.  Here  the  narrative  and  the  legal  elements 
are  very  closely  blended;  but  I  think  it  is  possible, 
even  on  the  supposition  that  the  Code  underwent 
moditication  in  course  of  time,  to  accept  the  books 
as  trustworthy  historical  records.  Let  us,  however, 
first  of  all,  see  how  the  critical  writers  account 
for  the  introduction  of  the  Code  and  its  related 
narratives. 

It  is  said  that  Ezekiel 

"  in  the  last  ])art  of  his  work  made  the  first  attemiit  to  record 
the  ritual  which  had  been  customary  in  the  Temple  of  Jerusa- 
lem. Other  priests  attached  themselves  to  him  (Levit.  xvii.- 
xxvi.),  and  thus  there  grew  up  in  the  exile  from  among  the 
members  of  this  profession  a  kind  of  school  of  people  who 
reduced  to  writing  and  to  a  system  what  they  had  formerly 
practised  in  the  way  of  their  calling.  After  the  Temi)le  was 
restored  this  theoretical  zeal  still  continued  to  work,  and  the 
ritual  when  renewed  was  still  further  developed  by  the  action 
and  reaction  on  each  other  of  theory  and  practice."  ^  "So 
long  as  the  sacrificial  worship  remained  in  actual  use,  it  was 
zealously  carried  on,  but  people  did  not  concern  themselves 
with  it  theoretically,  and  had  not  the  least  occasion  for  reducing 
it  to  a  Code.     But  once  the  Temple  was  hi  ruins,  the  cultus  at 


See  Note  XXVIII.        2  Well..  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  404;  comp.  4%. 


182  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

an  end,  its  personnel  out  of  employment,  it  i3  easy  to  under- 
stand how  the  sacred  praxis  should  have  become  a  matter  of 
theory  and  writing,  so  that  it  might  not  altogether  perish,  and 
how  an  exiled  priest  should  have  begun  to  paint  the  picture  of 
it  as  he  carried  it  in  his  memory,  and  to  publish  it  as  a  pro- 
gramme for  the  future  restoration  of  the  theocracy.  Nor  is 
there  any  difficulty  if  arrangements,  which  as  long  as  they  were 
actually  in  force  were  simply  regarded  as  natural,  were  seen 
after  their  abolition  in  a  transfiguring  light,  and  from  the  study 
devoted  to  them  gained  artificially  a  still  higher  value.''  ^ 

All  tliis  may  not  be  so  ^^easy  to  understand''  to 
everybody  as  it  seems  to  be  to  Wellhausen.  Indeed 
the  things  that  he  finds  'Mio  difficulty  "  in  accepting 
are  very  often  the  very  things  lor  which  proof  is 
most  desiderated.  As  to  codification  being  the  deposit 
during  the  exile  of  an  old,  fully  developed  praxis, 
we  have  already  had  something  to  say  (p.  400  f.);  and 
Bredenkamp  exclaims  with  justifiable  astonishment, 
'^  Clouds  wdiich  are  formed  in  the  time  of  grandsires 
are  not  in  the  habit  of  raining  upon  grandsons. 
Could  people  not  write  in  pre-exilic  times?  Must 
they  not  be  allowed  to  write?  Why  tear  with  vio- 
lence the  pen  from  the  hand  of  the  ancient  Israel- 
it  ish  priests?  "  ^  We  are  told  indeed  by  Wellhausen, 
on  his  own  authority,  that  the  praxis  of  the  priests  at 
the  altar  never  formed  part  of  the  written  law  in 
pre-exilic  times.^  But  Dillmann,  who  has  subjected 
these  books  to  a  most  thorough  examination,  not 
only  sees  nothing  against  the  idea,  but  finds  posi- 
tive proof  for  it,  that  the  priests  at  the  Temple  of 
Jerusalem  were  in  the  habit  of  writing  down  the 

•  WttUhnxaon,  Hist   of  Israel,  p.  69  f. 

■  Gesetz  mid  Prut)hHt«n,  p.  llfiL  *  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  r>'.». 


The  LaiO'Books,  183 

laws  and  regulations  for  their  ceremonial  functions.' 
Besides,  Wellhausen  has  to  assume  for  the  nonce 
that  the  praxis  which  was  '^zealously  carried  on" 
anterior  to  the  exile  was  just  what  underwent  codifi- 
cation after  it;  although  his  general  contention  is 
that  in  the  pre-exilic  period  ^'  no  trace  can  be  found 
of  acquaintance  with  the  Priestly  Code,  but  on  the 
other  hand,  very  clear  indications  of  ignorance  of 
its  contents."'^  If,  however,  such  'ignorance  of 
its  contents''  prevailed,  how  was  an  exiled  priest  or 
a  number  of  priests  to  carry  the  whole  thing  in 
memory  and  reduce  it  to  writing?  Moreover,  what 
he  ascribes  to  the  time  of  the  exile,  seems  ill  to 
agree  with  the  statement  of  the  matter  which  he 
gives  in  another  place.  The  Babylonian  exile,  he 
says, 

"  violently  tore  the  nation  away  from  its  native  soil  and  kept  it 
ai)art  for  half  a  century,— a  breach  of  historical  continuity 
than  which  it  is  almost  impossible  to  conceive  a  greater.  The 
new  generation  had  no  natural  but  only  an  artificial  relation  to 
the  times  of  old;  the  firmly  rooted  growths  of  the  old  soil,  re- 
garded as  thorns  by  the  pious,  were  extirpated,  and  the  freshly 
ploughed  fallows  ready  for  a  new  sowing."^ 

He  then  goes  on  to  say  that  it  is 

"far  from  being  the  case  that  the  whole  people  at  that  time 
underwent  a  general  conversion  in  the  sense  of  the  prophets, 
.  .  .  Only  the  pious  ones,  who  with  trembling  followed  Jeho- 
vah's word,  were  left  as  a  remnant;  they  alone  had  the  strength 
to  maintain  the  Jewish  individuality  amid  the  medley  of  nation- 
alities into  which  they  had  been  thrown.     From  the  exile  there 


1  Die  Biichor  Exodus  u.  Leviticus,  2'<-  Auflage,  p.  386.    He  calls  W'ell- 
hausen's  position  "  an  arbitrary  assertion." 

2  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  59.    Comp.  above,  p.  394.  '  Ibid.,  p.  28. 


184  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

rotiirnod.  not  the  nation,  l)nt  a  religious  sect — those,  namely, 
who  had  given  themselves  up  body  and  soul  to  the  reformation 
ideas.  It  is  no  wonder  that  to  these  people,  who  besides,  on 
their  return,  all  settled  in  the  immediate  neighbourhood  of  Jeru- 
salem, the  thought  never  once  occurred  of  restoring  the  local 
cults.  It  cost  them  no  struggle  to  allow  the  destroyed  Bamoth 
to  continue  lying  in  ruins;  the  principle  had  become  part  of 
their  very  being,  that  the  one  God  had  also  but  one  place  of 
worship,  and  thenceforward,  for  all  time  coming,  this  was  re- 
garded as  a  thing  of  course. 

This  aspect  of  the  exile  as  a  violent  wrench  from 
old  associations  is  hardly  consistent  with  the  view 
that  a  priestly  party  from  the  very  beginnin^:  of  the 
captivity  took  up  the  minute  study  and  arrangement 
of  the  sacrificial  system  which  had  just  been  broken 
up.  Nor,  although  it  is  '^  no  wonder"  to  Wellhau- 
sen,  is  it  very  clear  that  a  people  should  so  easily  for- 
get all  that  was  bad  in  the  past  worship  (and  how 
much  of  it  was  bad!)  and  so  readily  begin  life  anew 
on  an  entirely  new  principle.  Indeed  this  Avhole  ac- 
count of  the  influence  of  the  exile  on  the  codification 
of  law  does  not  by  any  means  turn  out  to  be  so  easy 
as  Wellhausen  would  make  us  believe. 

(1.)  In  the  first  place,  we  are  told  that  ''the 
transition  from  the  pre-exilic  to  the  post-exilic  period 
is  effected,  not  by  Deuteronomy,  but  by  Ezekiel  the 
priest  in  prophet's  mantle,  who  was  one  of  the  first 
to  be  carried  into  exile."  ^  Ezekiel's  so-called  pro- 
gramme is  so  confidently  appealed  to  as  the  precur- 
sor of  the  Levitical  Code,  that  to  assert  anytliiug  to 
the  contrary  at  the  present  day  is  to  exi)()se  one's 
self  to  ridicule  as  incompetent  to  understand  critical 

>  Hl8t.  of  Israel,  p.  69. 


The  Laiv-Books.  186 

processes.  Nay,  so  important  are  the  chapters  in 
the  book  of  Ezekiel  which  contain  this  programme, 
that  Wellhausen  says  they  have  been  called,  not  in- 
correctly, 'Hhe  key  of  the  Old  Testament."'  The 
chapters  in  question  are  xl.  to  xlviii.  They  form  a 
connected  piece,  and  tell  us  how  the  prophet  was, 
'^in  the  visions  of  God,"  brought  into  the  land  of 
Israel,  and  what  he  saw  and  was  told  there.  He 
dwells  at  great  length  on  the  measurements  and  de- 
tails of  arrangement  of  the  Temple,  and  communi- 
cates directions  for  its  dedication  and  for  its  service. 
He  also  describes  the  waters  issuing  from  under  the 
house  and  going  to  fertilise  the  desert;  and  he  lays 
out  minutely  the  measurements  of  the  sacred  terri- 
tory and  the  situation  of  the  tribes  in  the  land. 
Now,  surely,  by  all  honest  criticism,  whatever  mode 
of  interpretation  is  applied  to  one  part  of  this  vision 
should  be  made  to  apply  to  the  whole.  If  one  part  is  a 
cool,  deliberate  programme,  so  should  the  others.  If 
the  other  parts  are  clearly  not  to  be  taken  in  this 
sense,  neither  should  the  ceremonial  part.  Ezekiel 
is  just  as  precise  and  matter-of-fact  in  the  divisions 
which  he  makes  of  tlie  Holy  Land  as  in  the  ordi- 
nances he  puts  forth  for  the  worship  of  the  sanctuary. 
Yet  the  critical  school  proceeds  in  the  most  elabo- 
rate fashion  to  examine  this  code  or  programme, 
and  tells  us  that  it  is  the  first  attempt  to  arrange 
what  afterwards  became  the  Levitical  Code.  Why 
do  they  not  say  also  that  his  geographical  sketch  is 
to  be  understood,  say,  as  the  starting-point  for  the 
tribal  divisions  of  the  book  of  Joshua,  or  that  his 

»  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  421. 


186  Early  Religion  of  Israel, 

sketch  of  tlie  Temple  is  the  groundwork  of  Solo- 
mon's? I  must  confess  simply  that  I  cannot  under- 
stand the  principle  of  a  criticism  that  thus  tears  one 
j)iece  out  of  connection  and  seeks  to  make  it  a 
serious  historical  programme,  while  not  a  word  can  be 
said  in  favour  of  treating  the  other  parts  in  tlie  same 
way.  If  two-thirds  of  the  vision  are  clearly  ideal, 
so  must  the  other  third,  in  Avhatever  way  w^e  are  to 
understand  the  ideal  meaning  which  the  prophet 
meant  to  convey.  If  it  be  urged  that  Ezekiel  did 
not  need  to  give  details  for  ritual  if  a  ritual  law  ex- 
isted, and  that  he  makes  no  reference  to  any  law  on 
the  subject,  It  can  be  rejoined  that  he  speaks  in  the 
same  way  of  Temple  and  land.  We  cannot  gather 
from  his  description  that  the  Temple  of  Solomon  was 
ever  built  or  the  land  ever  divided  among  the  tribes 
before  his  day.  '^This,"  he  says,  ''shall  be  the 
bordei-,  whereby  ye  shall  divide  the  land  for  inheri- 
tance according  to  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel:  .  .  . 
concerning  the  which  I  lifted  up  mine  hand  to  give 
it  unto  your  fathers;"' '  and  he  gives  all  tlic  measure- 
ments of  some  house  seen  in  vision  without  referring 
to  a  house  which  he  knew  quite  well  as  having  stood 
for  centuries.  AVe  need  not  thcrefoi-e  wonder  at 
his  bringing  in  a  detailed  ritual,  as  if  this  were  the 
first  time  such  a  thing  had  been  heard  or  thought  of. 
He  is  not  for  the  first  time  in  history  trying  to  fix  a 
ritual  for  a  people  who  had  hitherto  nothing  but 
custom  to  guide  them.  His  sketch  is  too  brief  alto- 
gether for  such  an  attempt.  Xo  i)riesthood  could 
have  carried  on  the  service  of  the   sanctuary  and 

'  Ezek.  xlvii.  13.  14. 


The  Law-Books,  187 

regulated  the  worship  of  the  nation  with  such  a 
vague  and  fragmentary  manual.  As  to  its  being  as 
a  literary  work  the  foundation  of  the  later  Levitical 
Code,  it  is  not  by  any  means  certain  that  in  language 
or  matter  the  Levitical  Code  is  dependent  upon  it. 
A  careful  examination  has  led  competent  judges  to 
decide  tliat  the  reverse  is  the  case/  though  I  do  not 
tliink  it  necessary  to  go  into  this. 

But  it  may  be  urged,  if  there  was  a  detailed 
authoritative  law  in  existence,  why  did  Ezekiel,  even 
in  vision,  deviate  from  it?  Well,  on  the  critical 
hypothesis  the  Dcuteronomic  law  at  least  existed  as 
authoritative,  and  yet  Ezekiel  deviates  from  it.  If 
it  is  still  asked.  How  could  he,  prophet  though  he 
was,  quietly  set  aside  the  recognised  law?  the  ques- 
tion again  arises.  After  he,  a  prophet  speaking  in 
God's  name  by  direct  revelation,  sketched  this  law, 
how  did  priests  in  the  exile  pass  by  Ezekiel's  draft, 
and  frame  a  divergent  code?  In  fact,  there  are  in- 
superable difficulties  on  every  side  when  this  ritual 
of  Ezekiel  is  taken  as  a  cool,  matter-of-fact  pro- 
gramme of  legislation,  put  forth  as  a  first  attempt 
at  codification;  and  no  argument  can  be  based  upon 
it  for  the  modern  theory. 

(2.)  And  then,  secondly,  it  is  quite  conceivable 
that  the  people  in  the  exile  should  have  turned  their 
attention  to  matters  of  law.  They  would  be  com- 
pelled, in  order  to  keep  themselves  separate  from 
the  surrounding  heathen,  to  attend  to  those  matters 
of  personal,    ceremonial,    and   social   order    which 

1  See,  e.  g.,  Bredenkamp,  Gesetz  und  Propheten,  p.  116  ff. ;  DUlraann, 
Die  Biicher  Exodua  u.  Leviticus,  p.  524  ff.    See  also  Note  XXIX. 


188  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

were  their  national  distinctions,  and,  so  far,  their 
very  existence  as  a  separate  people  in  the  exile  is  a 
proof  of  pre-existing  law.  But  it  is  not  so  clear,  by 
any  means,  that  they  should  for  the  first  time  make 
a  study  of  purely  Levitical  and  sacrificial  laws  at 
a  time  when  they  had  no  cultus.  Nor,  in  view  of  the 
zeal  for  the  law  shown  at  a  later  time  by  the  Jews 
in  Babylon,  is  it  so  clear  that  only  a  few  underwent 
a  ^^  conversion  in  the  sense  of  the  prophets."  Well- 
hausen  has  to  suppose  a  school  of  people  who  gave 
themselves  ardently  to  this  study  of  ritual  law.  It 
was  a  large  school,  if  the  number  of  returning  exiles 
is  taken  into  account.  All  these  must  have  been  in 
Ezra's  secret  on  this  view, — all  ardently  devoted  to 
the  reformation  ideas.  Now,  in  point  of  fact,  Ezra's 
own  account  is  that  he  had  a  deficiency  of  Levitcs 
among  his  volunteers,  and  had  to  urge  them  to  join 
him  and  to  act  as  ' '  ministers  for  the  house  of  our 
God"  (Ezra  viii.  15  ff*.)  Moreover,  Ilaggai  shows 
us  that  the  people  were  very  far  indeed  from  being 
devoted  to  the  reformation  ideas;  the  sacrificial 
system  was  slackly  observed;  and  even  in  Ezra's  and 
Nehemiah's  time  the  picture  of  the  people  is  any- 
thing but  that  of  a  community  that  ''had  given 
themselves  up  ])ody  and  soul  to  the  reformation 
ideas"  of  either  morals  or  worship.^ 

(3.)  But,  further,  difficult  as  it  is  to  believe  that 
the  so-called  school  for  the  first  time  put  down  in 
writing  wliat  tliey  treasured  in  their  memories,  tliis 
is  not  the  whole  of  the  hypothesis.  Again,  and  in 
a  much  more  objectionable  form,  comes  in  the  sup- 

1  Ezra  Ix.  1  ff. ;  Neh.  v.  1  ff.,  xUl.  i  fl..  15  ff.,  23  ff. ;  Mai.  1.  6  fl.,  11.  8  ff. 


Tlie  Laio-Books.  189 

position  of  fiction,  whereby  a  false  historical  setting 
was  invented  for  the  laws  of  the  Levitical  Code,  by 
carrying  them  back  to  Moses  and  the  desert,  simply 
in  order  to  give  the  law  higher  sanction.  Not  only, 
for  example,  was  there  no  tabernacle,  such  as  is 
described  in  the  Pentateuch,  prepared  in  the  wilder- 
ness, but  even  at  the  time  when  the  story  of  its 
construction  was  fabricated,  there  was  no  such 
tabernacle  to  have  given  rise  to  the  fable,  nor  had 
any  such  tabernacle  ever  existed  to  give  a  start  to 
the  story. ^  It  was  simply  the  legend-spinning  inven- 
tion of  men  of  late  time  that  cut  down  the  dimen- 
sions of  the  Temple  to  half  their  size,  and  feigned 
that  a  tabernacle  of  that  size  existed  in  a  portable 
form  in  the  wilderness;  and  all  this  simply  to  make 
it  appear  that  the  Temple  worship  was  of  older 
institution  than  the  time  of  the  building  of  the 
Temple.  So  also  a  fictitious  origin  is  given  for  what 
the  Code  represents  as  other  early  institutions.  In 
every  case  in  which  a  law  is  said  to  have  been  given 
in  Mosaic  times,  the  circumstances,  if  stated,  must 
be  similarly  explained  as  invented  or  suggested  in  a 
late  time.  In  this  way,  all  sorts  of  divergences  of 
the  narrative  of  the  Priestly  Code  from  tliat  of  the 
Jehovist  are  accentuated,  and  it  is  made  to  appear — 
at  the  expense,  it  must  be  admitted,  of  wonderful 
ingenuity — that  the  former  are  of  exilic  time — i.e., 
of  the  date  of  or  subsequent  to  the  introduction  of 
the  laws.^ 

The  question  is  whether  the  palm  of  ingenuity  is 
to  be  assigned  to  the  writers  of  these  books  or  to 

1  Wellhausen,  p.  37  fl.  a  gee  Note  XXX. 


190  Early  Beligion  of  Israel 

the  modern  critics;  whether  a  school  composed  of 
men  like  Ezekiel  and  Ezra  were  likely  to  have  with 
boundless  inventiveness  concocted  all  this  history, 
or  our  modern  critics  are  ransacking  the  treasures 
of  their  wits  to  find  an  artificial  explanation  of  a 
thing  that  is  much  more  simple  than  they  make  it? 
For  wdiat  could  have  been  the  object  in  inventing 
history  wholesale  in  this  way?     To  give  sanction  to 
the  laws,  it  is  said :  but  on  whom  was  the  sanction 
to  bear?     If  on  the  men  of  tlie  priestly  school  them- 
selves, they  were  already,  on  the  hypothesis,  devoted 
to  the  reformation  ideas;  if  on  the  people  at  large, 
the  mere  manufacture  of  a  liistory  that  was  new  to 
them   was   not  likely   to   rouse    them    from    their 
lethargy  and  fire  them  with  new  zeal;  and,  so  far  as 
we  can  see,  it  did  not.     It  is  to  be  remembered — 
and  the  remark  applies  also  to  tlie   production   of 
Peuteronomy — that  this  was  not  a  case  of  a  person 
in  secret  devising  an  unheard-of  scheme  of  history, 
and  laying  it  away  to  ])e  read  l)y  i)OStcrity.     Nor 
was  it,  as  I  understan<l  the  theory,  a  case  of  gather- 
ing up  for  a  present  purpose  the  old  and  cherished 
traditions  of  a  people.     Tlie  thing  was  done,  so  to 
speak,  in  open  day  for  a  special  purpose  at  the  time, 
a  consideral)lc  number  of  persons  ])eing  engaged  in 
it,  and  among  a  i)eople  who  already  liad  a  definite 
tradition  as  to  their  history.     Yet,  though  the  peo- 
ple, at  least  in  Jeremiali's  days,  were  critical  enough 
in  matters  of  tlie  national  history  (Jer.  xxvi.  10  fl'.), 
we   never  hear,   either  then  or  at  the  time  of  the 
restoration,  of   any  susi)icion  being  cast  upon    the 
account  of  the  history  which  these  law-books  contain. 


The  Law-Books.  191 

(4.)  But  the  form  in  which  the  Lcvitical  Code 
appears  is  not  favourable  to  the  modern  theory  of 
its  origin.  The  laws  are  in  many  cases,  it  will  be 
observed,  provided  with  headings,  which  vary  in  a 
curious  manner,  as,  e.g.^  ''The  Lord  spake  unto 
Moses,"  ''  The  Lord  spake  unto  Moses  and  Aaron," 
and  even  ''the  Lord  spake  unto  Aaron";  and  the 
persons  to  whom  the  laws  are  directed  are  various,  as 
"the  children  of  Israel,"  "  Aaron  and  his  sons,"  "  all 
the  congregation  of  the  children  of  Israel,"  and 
"  Aaron  and  his  sons  and  all  the  children  of  Israel." 
Such  features  as  these,  as  well  as  the  manner  in 
which  the  laws  are  arranged,  the  same  subject  com- 
ing up  more  than  once,  and  the  same  law  being 
repeated  in  different  places,  give  one  the  impression 
that  the  laws  were  collected  together  from  different 
sources.  It  looks  as  if  there  had  been  smaller  col- 
lections, regulating  individual  observances  and  per- 
haps intrusted  to  different  persons  for  preservation 
and  execution.  At  all  events,  the  collection  does 
not  present  the  appearance  of  a  sj'stematic  Code. 
This  feature,  I  should  think,  is  more  opposed  to  the 
idea  of  composition  by  Ezra  and  a  school,  who 
would  surely,  when  the  whole  system  was  for  the 
first  time  to  be  set  down  in  writing,  have  proceeded 
in  a  more  systematic  manner,  than  to  the  idea  of 
Mosaic  origin  and  gradual  modification  in  course  of 
time.  I  have  already  referred  to  the  peculiarity  of 
the  Hebrew  speech,  whereby  the  direct  words  must 
be  put  into  the  mouth  of  the  speaker,  when  we  need 
only  assume  the  substance  of  the  thing  delivered. 
The  headings  of  those  laws,  on  this  common-sense 


192  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

mode  of  viewing  the  matter,  mean  no  more  tlian 
that  the  laws  originally  came  from  Mosaic  times; 
the  history  is  satisfied,  and  the  bona  fides  of  the 
writers  is  maintained.  So  that  even  if  the  final 
codification  took  place  as  late  as  Ezra,  the  Code,  and 
still  more  the  institutions,  might  with  propriety  and 
substantial  accuracy  be  described  as  Mosaic. 

The  Biblical  writers  do  not  fix  for  us  the  time  or 
times  at  which  the  laws  as  they  lie  before  us  were  writ- 
ten down;  and  their  statements,  fairly  interpreted, 
allow  us  to  suppose  that  the  books  passed  through 
many  literary  processes  before  they  reached  their 
final  form.  The  multiplicity  of  the  sources  out  of 
which  the  law-books  are  composed  is  a  proof  of  long- 
continued  literary  history.  The  peculiar  arrange- 
ment of  the  legal  portions,  nay,  their  very  divergence 
from  one  another,  prove  that  law  was  for  long  a 
living  thing,  and  that  the  Codes  are  not  resuscitated 
from  the  memories  of  priests  or  excogitated  by 
scribes.  If,  as  seems  quite  reasonable,  the  laws  for 
various  ceremonies  were,  in  the  hands  of  those  who 
had  charge  of  them,  copied  and  handed  on  from 
generation  to  generation  of  priests,  it  is  quite  prol)- 
able  that  in  the  course  of  time  tliere  might  have 
liappened  alterations  of  the  rubric  with  altered 
circumstances,  and  that  tlie  final  transcrij)t  or  redac- 
tion would  thus  have  a  more  modern  cast  tlian  the 
original.  All  this,  however,  does  not  dis})rovc  the 
antiquity  of  the  legislation  nor  the  early  writing  of 
the  laws,  and  it  is  surely,  though  not  so  ingenious, 
yet  a  much  more  ingenuous  explanation  than  to  say 
that  the  laws  were  by  a  fiction  ascribed  to  ancient 


The  Law-Books,  193 

time  in  order  to  give  them  an  authority  to  which 
they  were  not  entitled.  By  taking  the  statements 
of  the  Biblical  writers  as  they  stand,  and  not  burden- 
ing them  with  conclusions  for  which  they  are  not 
responsible,  we  get  a  more  consistent  and  natural 
view  of  the  whole  history  of  the  law — a  view  that 
certainly  in  itself  is  more  credible  to  one  who  is  not 
prejudiced  against  the  Biblical  writers,  and  set  to 
watch  for  their  halting.  For  the  rest,  the  order  of 
the  Codes  as  Codes  written,  the  relation  of  laws  to 
one  another,  and  their  modifications  in  detail  with 
advancing  time — these  are  things  that  criticism  may 
exercise  its  ingenuity  upon,  and  seek  to  exhibit  in 
their  true  lights  and  proportions.  But  they  are 
more  of  archaeological  than  of  practical  interest  in 
reference  to  the  great  point  which  we  wish  to  ascer- 
tain, the  origin  and  development  of  the  religion; 
and  it  is  mainlj  because  they  have  been  too  much 
bound  up  with  that  question  that  they  have  acquired 
so  much  importance.  There  can  be  no  harm  in 
critical  investigation  of  this  kind,  so  long  as  the 
main  course  of  the  history,  which  rests  on  its  own 
independent  proofs,  is  taken  as  the  guiding  princi- 
ple of  the  criticism.  It  is,  to  say  the  least,  very 
doubtful  whether  at  this  distance  of  two  or  three 
thousand  years  we  are  in  a  position  to  determine, 
with  any  measure  of  success,  the  dates  of  the  respec- 
tive sources  of  which  the  books  of  the  Pentateuch 
are  made  up.  The  extraordinary  turns  that  modern 
criticism  has  taken  on  the  subject  testify  to  the 
difficulty  of  the  problem,  if  tliey  do  not  shake  our 
confidence  in  its  ability  to  solve  it.     Tlie  curious 


1 94  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

blending  of  elements  in  the  composite  structure  of 
these  books,  while  it  impresses  on  us  the  magnitude 
of  the  task  of  criticism,  suggests  a  gradual  and 
repeated  process  of  editing,  transcribing  and  modi- 
fication which  is  perfectly  conceivable  among  a 
people  well  acquainted  with  literary  processes. 
The  essential  point  to  be  remembered — the  point  to 
which  all  our  investigations  have  tended — is,  that 
the  law  and  the  writing  of  it  are  much  older  than 
modern  critics  allow;  and  the  phenomenon  which 
the  books  as  books  present  to  us  is  much  more  rea- 
sonably accounted  for  on  the  Biblical  principle  than 
on  the  modern  theory:  they  are  a  product,  in  a 
natural  way,  of  history,  both  religious  and  literary 
— not  compositions,  framed  according  to  a  literary 
method  altogetlier  unparalleled  in  order  to  manufac- 
ture a  history  which  never  was. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

LAW   AND    PROPHECY. 

The  order  of  law  and  iwophets  reversed  by  modern  theory, 
and  this  not  merely  as  an  order  of  written  documents 
but  of  history — (1)  Position  examined  that  all  the  2^rophets 
denied  the  divine  authority  of  sacrifice  and  ritual  laws — 
Passages  from  Isaiah,  Micah,  Rosea,  Jeremiah  considered 
— (2)  The  2)OSition  that  the  Deuteronomic  Code  was  intro- 
duced through  prophetic  influence,  and  with  it  the  impidse 
given  to  legalism — Inconsistent  character  in  which  the 
prophets  are  made  to  appear  in  modern  theory — The 
whole  position  of  the  prophets  as  religious  guides  is  to  be 
taken  into  account — The  Covenant,  and  lohat  it  implied — 
The  historical  situation  in  Josiah's  time  does  not  agree 
ibith  modern  theory — Nor  does  the  situation  at  and  after 
the  exile — Fundamental  harmony  of  laio  and  prophecy — 
The  history  did  not  turn  on  a  struggle  of  parties — Law 
and  Gospel, 

According  to  the  modern  theory  the  Biblical  order 
of  law  and  prophets  is  reversed  into  the  order  of 
prophets  and  law.  Did  this  merely  amount  to  the 
assertion  that  some  of  the  prophetical  writings 
existed  before  the  Pentateuch  had  assumed  its  pre- 
sent form,  it  might  be  a  defensible  position  on 
grounds  of  literary  criticism. ^  It  is,  however,  main- 
tained in  the  sense  that  prophetic  activity  comes 

1  Of.  Weimausen.  p.  409. 


196  Early  Religion  of  Isi^ael. 

historically  before  the  acceptance  of  authoritative 
law,  and  that,  in  fact,  by  a  course  of  develoi)nicnt, 
the  prophets  brought  about  the  introduction  of  tlie 
law.  The  position  which,  on  this  theory,  the  pro- 
phets are  made  to  assume  from  first  to  last,  and  the 
relation  in  which  they  are  made  to  stand  towards 
the  whole  movement  of  legislation,  are  so  peculiar 
that  the  subject  requires  some  special  treatment. 

(1.)  We  have  already  considered  the  contention 
that  in  all  those  passages  in  the  earlier  writing 
prophets  in  which  law  or  laws  are  mentioned,  the 
reference  is  only  to  oral  and  not  to  written  law. 
The  priests,  we  arc  told,  like  the  prophets,  gave 
forth  their  toroth  or  instructions  orally  to  the  people; 
and  the  substance  of  the  priestly  Torah  was  chiefly 
moral,  but  partly  also  ceremonial,  relating  to  things 
clean  and  unclean.  Whatever  became  of  the  con- 
crete toroth  on  those  subjects,  we  are  assured  that 
the  practice  of  the  priests  at  the  altar  Avas  never 
matter  of  instruction  to  the  laity,  and  was  not  writ- 
ten down  in  a  codified  shape.  ^  It  is  not  made  very 
clear  in  all  this  wherein  the  Torah  of  the  priests 
differed  from  that  of  the  prophets;  nor  is  it  made 
clear  to  what  extent,  if  any,  the  priests  wrote  down 
their  moral  and  ceremonial  Torah.  What  we  have 
particularly  to  do  with  here,  however,  is  the  attitude 
of  the  prophets  to  the  law.  It  cannot  be  denied 
that,  in  the  expressions  of  a  general  kind  which  they 
employ,  they  show  a  high  respect  for  the  Torah  of 
the  priests.  This,  however,  say  the  critical  his- 
torians,  was  the  moral  i)art  of  the  priestly  instruc- 

1  Wellhauson,  p.  59. 


Law  and  Prophecy.  197 

tion,  and  it  is  Btrcniioiisly  maintained  that  the 
})rophcts,  down  to  the  time  of  Jeremiah,  denied  the 
divine  authority  of  sacrifice  and  ritual  laws.  The 
situation,  as  I  understand  the  contention,  was  this: 
In  pre-exilic  antiquity,  when  the  worship  of  the  Ba- 
moth  was  the  rule,  the  main  thing  in  the  service  was 
not  the  rite,  but  the  deity  to  whom  the  service  was 
rendered.  The  historical  books  that  date  from  pre- 
exilic  time — the  books  of  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings 
— exhibit  great  varieties  in  the  modes  of  sacrifice, 
some  of  which  may  correspond  to  the  law  of  the 
Pentateuch,  while  others  certainly  deviate  widely 
from  it,  proving  that  there  was  no  fixed  rule.  ^  The 
prophetical  books  also,  ^^in  their  polemic  against 
confounding  worship  with  religion,"  while  they  ^^  re- 
veal the  fact  that  in  their  day  the  cultus  was  carried 
on  with  the  utmost  zeal  and  splendour, "  show  that 
this  high  estimation  rested,  not  on  the  opinion  that 
the  cultus  came  from  Moses,  but  simply  on  the  be- 
lief that  Jahaveh  must  be  honoured  by  His  depend- 
ants, just  like  other  gods,  by  means  of  offerings  and 
gifts.  ^  "  According  to  the  universal  opinion  of  the 
pre-exilic  period,  the  cultus  is  indeed  of  very  old  and 
(to  the  people)  very  sacred  usage,  but  not  a  Mosaic 
institution;  the  ritual  is  not  the  main  thing  in  it, 
and  is  in  no  sense  the  subject  with  which  the  Torah 
deals.  "^  So  that,  in  a  word,  as  far  as  regards  the 
ceremonies  of  worship,  ^  ^  the  distinction  between 
legitimate  and  heretical  is  altogether  wanting; "  * 
the  theory  of  an  illegal  praxis  is  impossible,  and  the 

1  WeUhausen,  p.  51;.  2  ibid.,  p.  56. 

»  Ibid.,  p.  59.  4  Ibid,,  p.  55. 


108  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

lofritimacy  of  the  actually  existing  is  indisputable.* 
The  i)ropliets,  therefore,  wlien  they  rebuke  the  peo- 
ple for  their  sacrifices  and  offerings,  are  not  to  be 
understood  as  reproving  them  for  the  corruption  of 
a  i)ure  law  of  worship  that  existed,  but  as  express- 
ing disapproval  of  the  whole  sacrificial  system,  as 
a  thing  of  mere  human  device,  and  destitute  of  di- 
vine sanction.  Not  only  do  they  show,  by  thus 
speaking,  that  there  was  no  law  such  as  the  Leviti- 
cal  Code  in  their  day;  but  even  the  prophets,  before 
the  time  of  Josiah,  have  nothing  to  say  against  the 
local  sanctuaries  (so  long  as  they  are  devoted  to  the 
worship  of  the  national  God),  a  proof  that  the  Deu- 
teronomic  Code  did  not  come  into  existence  till  that 
period,  and  much  more  a  proof  that  it  had  no  divine 
sanction.  The  prophets,  in  a  word,  appear  as  the 
exponents  of  a  tendency  the  very  opposite  of  the 
legalising  tendency  which  brought  legal  Codes  into 
existence. 

Great  stress,  in  this  argument,  is  laid  upon  the 
declaration  of  Isaiah.  His  antipathy  to  the  whole 
ritual  system  finds  expression,  it  is  said,  in  the  well- 
known  passage  in  the  first  chapter  of  his  book:  ^^  To 
what  purpose  is  the  multitude  of  your  sacrifices  unto 
me?  saith  Jahaveh:  I  am  weary  with  the  burnt-of- 
ferings of  rams,  and  the  fat  of  fed  ])easts;  and  I  de- 
light not  in  the  blood  of  bullocks,  and  of  lambs,  and 
of  he-goats.  When  ye  come  to  look  uj^on  my  face, 
who  hath  required  this  at  your  hands,  to  trample  my 
courts?  "  This  expression,  Wellhausen  asserts  with 
confidence,  ''the  prophet  could  not  possibly  have 

1  Weimausen,  p.  60. 


Law  and  Prophecy.  199 

uttered  if  the  sacrificial  worship  had,  according  to 
any  tradition  whatever,  passed  for  being  specitically 
Mosaic."^  But  Avhat  then  becomes  of  the  book  of 
the  Covenant,  which  was  surely  at  this  time  ac- 
cepted as  an  authoritative  Code,  and  is  expressly 
ascribed  to  Moses?  It  says,  in  the  law  of  worship 
which  the  critics  appeal  to  as  existing  up  to  Josiah's 
time,  and  therefore  prevailing  in  Isaiah's  days: 
'^  An  altar  of  earth  thou  shalt  make  unto  me,  and 
shalt  sacrifice  thereon  thy  burnt-offerings,  and  tliy 
peace-offerings,  thy  sheep,  and  thine  oxen."^  Or  if 
it  is  maintained  that  Isaiah  condemned  even  that 
early  piece  of  legislation,  surely  the  argument  here 
employed  proves  too  much.  For  it  would  make  the 
prophet  condemn  also  the  Sabbath  as  a  piece  of  will- 
worship,  and  even  reject  prayer  as  a  thing  displeasing 
to  God,  since,  in  the  same  connection,  he  says:  ''The 
new  moons  and  Sabbaths,  the  calling  of  assemblies, 
I  cannot  away  with;  .  .  .  and  when  ye  spread  forth 
your  hands,  I  will  hide  jnine  eyes  from  j-ou;  yea, 
when  ye  make  many  prayers,  I  will  not  hear."^ 

If  we  allow  to  Isaiah  the  perception  of  a  difference 
between  sacrifice  as  an  opus  operatum,  and  sacrifice 
as  the  expression  of  a  true  and  obedient  heart — and 
surely  the  prince  of  the  prophets  Avas  capable  of 
drawing  such  a  distinction — his  words  have  a  defi- 


1  WeUhausen,  p.  58.  -  Exod,  xx.  2i. 

3  Isa.  i.  13,  15.  Konlg  (Hauptprobleme,  p.  90)  endeavours  to  make  a 
distinction  between  "  I  cannot  away  with  "  (v.  13)  as  applied  to  the 
Sabbath,  and  "  who  hath  required?"  (v.  12)  as  applied  to  offerings; 
and  says  that  a  '  cautious  exegesis  "  sliows  that  the  things  enumerated 
In  vv.  11-16  were  looked  upon  as  matters  of  worship,  coming  in  different 
senses  and  degrees  from  God.  "  Cautious  "  is  scarcely  the  term  that  I 
should  apply  to  such  exegesis;  for  I  doubt  very  much  whether  such 
flue  distinctions  ever  occurred  to  the  minds  of  the  prophets. 


200  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

nite  and  precise  meaning,  eminently  suited  to  the 
times  and  circumstances  in  wiiicli  he  lived.  If  we 
take  them  as  a  statement  in  this  bald  form,  of  the 
history  of  religious  observances  in  Israel,  they  are 
emptied  of  their  ethical  as  well  as  tlieir  rhetorical 
force,  and  land  us  in  a  position  which  is  incompre- 
hensible in  the  circumstances.  For  what,  is  it  con- 
ceived or  conceivable,  was  the  worship  of  a  true  Is- 
raelite in  Isaiah's  days?  Is  there  any  outward  wor- 
ship left  that  a  man  like  Isaiah  himself  could  take 
part  in?  Is  this  prophet  to  be  refined  away  into  a 
kind  of  free-thinker  who  stood  aloof  from  all  out- 
ward observances  of  religion,  who  ^ '  never  went  to 
church,"  as  the  modern  phrase  goes,  because  the 
whole  of  the  ordinary  service  of  worship  was  a  mere 
human  device?  Or  if  a  prophet  might  thus  attain 
to  a  position  independent  of  the  outward  aids  of  de- 
votion, what  of  the  common  people?  What  worship 
is  to  be  allowed  to  them  at  all,  if  all  that  went  on  at 
the  Temple  is  condemned,  and  if  the  condemnation 
means  what  the  critics  say?  For,  be  it  observed, 
Isaiah  is  not  indifferent  to  these  things,  as  things 
that  might  be  good  enough  for  the  vulgar,  but  were 
too  gross  for  him.  Whatever  the  things  are  to 
which  he  is  referring,  he  refers  to  them  with  dis- 
pleasure; and  if  there  is  a  possibility  of  legitimate 
worship  at  all,  we  must  regard  his  words  not  as  a 
condemnation  of  that,  but  of  the  spirit  in  which  it 
was  performed,  or  of  the  abuses  with  which  it  was  sur- 
rounded. A  mere  historical,  unimpassioned  state- 
ment as  to  the  origin  of  sacrificial  worship  is  out  of 
the  question. 


Laio  and  Prophecy.  201 

Again,  it  has  been  said  that  the  words  of  Micah, 
the  contemporaiy  of  Isaiah,  prove  the  same  thing: 
^'He  hath  showed  thee,  0  man,  what  is  good;  and 
what  doth  the  Lord  require  of  thee,  but  to  do  justly, 
and  love  mercy,  and  to  walk  humbly  with  thy  God?" 
(Micah  vi.  8).  Says  Wellhausen,  '' Although  the 
blunt  statement  of  the  contrast  between  cultus  and 
religion  is  peculiarly  prophetic,  Micah  can  still  take 
his  stand  upon  this:  '■  It  hath  been  told  thee,  0  man, 
what  Jehovah  requires.'  It  is  no  new  matter,  but  a 
thing  well  known,  that  sacrifices  are  not  what  the 
Torah  of  the  Lord  contains,"^  which  is  not  a  fair 
interpretation  of  the  prophet's  words,  for  the  com- 
mand to  do  justly  and  love  mercy  does  not  exclude  a 
command  to  ofter  sacrifice.  But  this  is  the  very 
prophet  wlio,  in  almost  identical  terms  with  Isaiah, 
anticipates  the  time  when  the  mountain  of  the  Lord's 
house  shall  l)e  exalted,  and  all  nations  shall  flow  into 
it.  So  that  tlic  argument,  if  pushed  to  its  conclu- 
sion, would  i)rove  that  these  two  prophets  denied 
the  divine  authority  of  all  outward  observances  of 
religion;  and  yet  would  ascribe  to  them  the  absurdity 
of  maintaining  great  sanctity  for  a  Temple  and  an 
altar,  whose  service  was  otiose  or  altogether  im- 
proper. 

In  the  same  way  appeal  is  made  to  the  well-known 
declaration  of  Ilosea,  ''  I  desired  mercy  and  not 
sacrifice  "  (Hosea  vi.  G).  One  Avould  have  thought 
that  the  proi)liet's  meaning  was  made  quite  clear  by 
the  words  that  follow,  '-and  the  knowledge  of  God 
more  tlian  l)urnt-()ir('riiigs."'     I  confess  I  am  aston- 

1  Hist,  (if  Israol,  p.  58. 


202  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

ished  that  a  passage  like  this  slioukl  be  insisted  upon 
by  professional  students  of  Hebrew;  but  it  would 
almost  seem  that,  in  their  anxiety  to  establisli  a  hy- 
pothesis, some  can  not  only  ignore  poetry  and  senti- 
ment in  the  Hebrew  writings,  but  even  shut  their 
eyes  to  plain  matters  of  grammar  and  rhetoric.  The 
slightest  reference  to  the  usage  of  the  language  will 
suffice  to  show  how  little  worth  is  the  argument 
based  on  the  text  before  us.  When  we  read  in  Prov. 
viii.  10,  '' Receive  my  instruction  and  not  silver, 
and  knowledge  rather  than  choice  gold,"  we  perceive 
that  the  two  forms  of  expression  explain  one  another. 
Who  would  conclude  from  the  phrase  '  ^  and  not  silver  " 
that  it  was  absolutely  forbidden  in  all  circumtances 
to  take  silver?  Or  again,  when  we  read,  ''Let  a 
bear  robbed  of  her  w^helps  meet  a  man  in  the  way,  and 
not  a  fool  in  his  folly"  (Prov.  xvii.  12),  does  any  one 
conclude  that  it  was  of  no  consequence  what  became  of 
a  man  exposed  to  the  attack  of  a  wild  beast,  so  long 
as  he  kept  out  of  the  way  of  a  fool?  The  prophet,  in 
brief,  says  only  what  Samuel  said  long  before  him, 
''To  obey  is  better  than  sacrifice,  and  to  hearken 
that  the  fat  of  rams,"  though  the  seer  of  Ramah 
liimself  offered  sacrifices  as  a  regular  religious  ob- 
servance. What  he  did,  no  doubt  his  successors  in 
the  prophetic  office  countenanced;  and  tliere  is  ab- 
solutely no  proof  that,  up  to  the  time  of  Josiah,  the 
Temple  at  Jerusalem  was  a  place  at  which  no  purer 
service  was  known  than  tliat  practised  at  tlie  high 
places.  The  writer  of  the  books  of  the  Kings,  though 
his  testimony  cannot  be  pressed  here,  had  some  good 
reason  for  singling  out  certain  kings  wlio  introduced 


Law  and  Prophecy.  203 

heathen  corruptions  into  the  Temple  service,  and 
instancing  the  attempts,  successful  or  otherwise,  to 
abolish  them  by  others.  To  suppose  that  he  acted 
arbitrarily  in  this  matter  is  to  criticise  away  his  ac- 
counts altogether,  and  would  leave  us  no  assurance  of 
the  truth  of  even  the  account  of  Josiah's  reformation. 
There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  at  certain  times,  and 
under  the  more  faithful  of  the  kings,  the  worship  of 
the  central  sanctuary  at  Jerusalem  was  observed  with 
something  of  the  purity  and  regularity  which  were 
maintained  after  the  time  at  which  the  critics  allow 
the  reform  took  place.  To  take  the  case  of  Isaiah, 
can  any  of  the  modern  school  tell  us  what  led  that 
prophet  to  clothe  the  vision  of  his  inauguration  to 
the  prophetic  work  (Isa.  vi)  in  the  dress  which  he 
gives  to  it,  and  why,  if  the  Temple  service  was  full 
of  abominations,  its  furniture  and  arrangements 
should  have  been  chosen  for  the  imagery  of  one  of 
his  highest  flights  of  prophetic  inspiration?  What 
was  the  altar  from  which  a  live  coal  was  taken,  the 
touching  of  his  lips  by  which  was  to  purge  his  in- 
iquity? One  would  have  thought  there  was  more 
need — if  the  modern  position  is  correct — for  the  pu- 
rifying influence  to  proceed  in  the  opposite  direction, 
from  the  prophet  to  the  altar,  and  that  the  message 
delivered  to  the  prophet  should  have  been  like  that 
of  the  prophet  against  the  altar  of  Bethel  (1  Kings 
xiii.  2). 

But  we  are  told  confidently  that  Jeremiah  gives 
conclusive  proof  of  the  modern  theory  when  he  says 
(vii.  22):  '^For  I  spake  not  unto  your  fathers,  nor 
commanded  them  in  the  day  that   I  brought   them 


204  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  concerning  burnt-offerings 
or  sacrifices  :  but  this  thing  I  commanded  them, 
saying,  Hearken  unto  my  voice,  and  I  will  be  your 
God,  and  ye  shall  be  my  people."  Well,  if  we  are 
bound  at  all  hazards  to  take  words  literally,  the 
words  are  literally  true  ;  for,  according  to  the 
account  of  Exodus  itself  the  command  in  the  day  of 
the  deliverance  from  Egypt  was  not  a  command  in 
regard  to  burnt-offerings  and  sacrifices.  The  peo- 
ple at  that  crisis  had  to  make  the  grand  venture  of 
faith  and  obedience;  and  not  till  they  were  delivered 
and  safe  in  the  desert  was  there  any  ^ '  command 
concerning  "  a  system  of  sacrifices.  It  is  this  idea 
that  is  working  in  the  prophet's  mind,  though  I  do 
not  believe  he  imagined  for  a  moment  that  his  words 
would  be  taken  as  a  historical  statement  of  the  late 
origin  of  sacrifices,  or  of  the  time  of  its  introduction 
at  all.  The  polemic  was  not  as  to  the  date  of  intro- 
duction of  sacrifice,  but  as  to  its  rightful  place  and 
meaning.  Jeremiah  was  not  opposed  to  all  ritual 
service,  as  Graf  himself  admitted.  His  words  are 
just  an  expansion  of  the  fundamental  prophetic 
dictum  of  Samuel  that  to  obey  is  better  than  sac- 
rifice. The  thing  he  is  insisting  on,  as  all  the 
prophets  do,  is  the  utter  worthlessness  of  sacrifices 
and  offerings  without  the  obedience  of  the  life  and 
the  fidelity  of  the  heart.  And  to  make  the  words 
mean  more  is  to  make  Jeremiah  declare  that  up  to 
his  time  there  was  no  law  for  worship  whatever,  and 
yet  worsliii)  at  that  jicriod  without  authorised  cere- 
monial and  sacrifice  is  inconceivable. 

(2.)  On  tlie  otluT  hand,  we  are  told  l)y  tlie  advo- 


Law  and  Prophemj.  205 

cates  of  the  modern  tlicory  tliat  it  was  through  pro- 
phetic influence  tliat  the  Code  of  Deuteronomy  was 
brought  into  existence  and  recognition,  and  that  the 
movement  once  set  agoing,  resulted  also  in  the  cod- 
ification of  the  Levitical  law;  that,  in  fact,  the  pro- 
phets seeking  to  give  permanent  form  and  authorita- 
tive sanction  to  their  teaching,  embodied  it  in  the 
form  of  a  code;  that  thus  prophecy  had  its  final  de- 
velopment, but  in  reaching  this  development  de- 
stroyed itself.  Speaking  of  the  manner  in  which 
the  Deuteronomic  Code  was  brought  in,  Wellhausen 
says  :  ''  With  the  tone  of  repudiation  in  which  the 
earlier  prophets,  in  the  zeal  of  their  opposition,  had 
occasionally  spoken  of  practices  of  worship  at  large, 
there  was  nothing  to  be  achieved;  the  thing  to  be 
aimed  at  was  not  abolition  but  reformation,  and  the 
end,  it  was  believed,  would  be  helped  by  concentra- 
tion of  all  ritual  in  the  capital  "  (p.  26).  He  admits, 
indeed,  that  merely  to  abolish  the  holy  places,  and 
only  to  limit  to  one  locality  the  cultus,  which  was 
still  to  be  the  main  concern,  was  by  no  means  the 
wish  of  the  prophets — though  it  came  about  as  an 
incidental  result  of  tlieir  teaching  (p.  23).  This, 
however,  seems  to  be  hardly  consistent  with  the 
preceding  position ;  nor  do  I  think  it  is  reconcilable 
with  a  fair  interpretation  of  the  declarations  of  the 
prophets  on  the  subject.  The  influence  of  the 
prophets  cannot  be  said  to  have  been  at  any  time  in 
the  direction  of  the  enforcement  of  external  obser- 
vances, except  in  so  far  as  they  urged  the  people  to 
that  change  of  heart  which  would  result  in  such  obser- 
vances; and  there  is  no  proof  from  their  own  writings 


206  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

that  they  knew  of  any  way  of  curing  the  people's 
godlessness  but  the  exercise  of  repentance  and  the 
return  to  heart  religion. 

If  there  is  any  one  class  in  the  Old  Testament  his- 
tory to  whom  we  must  accord  the  title  of  cjirnest- 
ness  and  sincerity  of  purpose,  it  is  the  prophets. 
The  most  superficial  reader  must  perceive  their  deep 
religious  devotion,  their  freedom  from  self-seeking 
and  time-serving.  It  is  difficult,  however,  to  recon- 
cile the  admission  of  these  qualities  with  the  charac- 
ters they  exhibit  and  the  parts  they  are  made  to  play 
on  the  modern  theory.  Wellhausen,  for  example, 
attempts  to  prove  that  Isaiah  never  laboured  for  the 
removal  of  the  Bamoth,  but  only  for  their  purifica- 
tion;'  although  he  himself  tells  us  that  all  writers 
of  the  Chaldean  period  associate  monotheism  in  the 
closest  way  with  unity  of  worship  (p.  27),  and  admits 
that  Isaiah  himself  gave  a  special  pre-eminence  in  his 
estimation  to  Jerusalem,  and  that  '^  even  as  early 
as  the  time  of  Micah  the  temple  must  have  been 
reckoned  a  house  of  God  of  an  altogether  peculiar 
order,  so  as  to  make  it  a  paradox  to  put  it  on  a  level 

1  The  reason  given  for  this  statement  should  not  be  passed  over:  It  Is 
characteristic  of  Wellhausen's  method  of  proof:  "  In  one  of  his  latest 
discourses  his  anticipation  for  that  time  of  righteousness,  and  the  fear 
of  God  wliich  is  to  dawn  after  the  Assyrian  crisis,  is  :  '  Then  shall  je 
defile  the  silver  covering  of  your  graven  images,  and  the  golden  plating 
of  your  molten  Images:  ye  siiall  cast  them  away  as  a  thing  polluted: 
Eegono!  shall  ye  say  unto  them  '  (xxx.  i>2).  If  he  thus  hopes  for  a  puri- 
fication from  superstitious  accretions  of  the  i)laces  where  Jehovah  is 
worshipped,  it  is  clear  that  he  is  not  thinking  of  their  t<^tal  abolition  " 
(p.  '25  f.)  Wo  will  leave  the  circles  in  wliich  "  appreciation  of  scientific 
results  can  he  looked  for  at  all  "  (p.  '.»),  to  <letermine  hero  whether  the 
"accretions"  are  merely  tin-  plating  of  the  images— as  tlio.se  who 
believe  ima^'e-worship  was  the  authorised  religion  would  no  doubt 
say— or  thrtlmages  themselves,  as  Wellhausen  liimself  seems  to  imply 
(p.  4r>).  in  which  case  one  would  sujipose  there  would  be  little  use  of 
those  places  of  worship  at  all.  Pyramids  of  ••  scientific  results  "  are 
poised  up(m  sucli  precarious  points,  but  I  take  it  that  Isaiah  was  not 
one  to  concern  liimsolf.  like  the  .scribes  ami  Pharisees,  witli  such  dis- 
tinctions (Matt.  xxiv.  lC-18).    See  before,  chap.  ix.  p.  228;  com  p.  p.  235  f. 


Law  and  Prophecy,  207 

with  the  Bamoth  of  Judah."^  And  yet  these  two 
prophets  are  relied  upon  as  leading  witnesses  to 
prove  that  tlie  whole  ritual  S3'steni  was  not  only 
without  authority,  but  positively  displeasing  to  God. 
The  question  is  whether  the  inconsistency  is  to  be 
attributed  to  the  prophets  or  to  be  charged  against 
a  vicious  theory;  for  other  prophets  fare  no  better 
at  the  hands  of  the  critics.  For,  let  us  come  down 
to  Jeremiah,  who  was  contemporary  with  the  Deu- 
teronomic  reformation,  and  who  has  even  l)een  sup- 
posed to  have  had  a  hand  in  the  composition  of  the 
book  or  the  Code.  We  find  that  prophet,  so  far 
from  trusting  to  the  mere  acceptance  of  a  written 
code  for  reformation,  going  beyond  any  of  his  pre- 
decessors in  the  inwardness  of  his  teaching.^  He 
has  reached,  finally,  the  conception  of  personal 
heart  religion  as  a  thing  far  before  a  mere  national 
adoption  of  a  national  God,  and  speaks  of  the  law 
written  in  the  heart.  How  a  person  with  such 
views — not  to  speak  of  his  conviction  that  law  had 
no  divine  sanction — should  labour  to  elaborate  a 
book  like  Deuteronomy,  and  trust  to  its  reception 
to  bring  about  the  state  of  things  he  desired,  it  is 
very  hard  to  understand.  Or  if  Jeremiah  did  in- 
deed help  the  introduction  of  Deuteronomy,  he  at 
the  same  time  went  far  beyond  it  in  the  unfolding  of 
its  teaching;  and  what  then  becomes  of  the  asser- 
tion, that  the  codifying  of  the  law  put  an  end  to 
the  free  activity  of  the  prophets?  No  wonder  that 
prophecy,  in  reaching  this  position,  destroyed  itself, 
for  the  prophets  had  stultified  themselves.     There  is 

1  WeUhausen,  p.  25.  "^  Jer.  iii.  16;  xxxl.  31  ff. 


208  Early  Religion  of  Israel 

lierc  an  exhibition  of  inconsistency  wliicli  requires 
explanation,  and  the  explanation  that  is  given  is 
peculiar.  '•  In  his  early  years,"  we  are  told,'  ''Jer- 
emiah had  a  share  in  the  introduction  of  the  law; 
but  in  later  times  he  shows  himself  little  edified  by 
the  effects  it  i)roduced;  the  lying  pen  of  the  scribes, 
he  says,  has  written  for  a  lie  (Jer.  viii^  7-9)."  To 
say  nothing  of  the  very  doubtful  determination  of 
early  and  late  in  Jeremiah's  utterances  on  this  sub- 
ject, we  are  asked  to  believe  not  only  that  the 
})rophet  had  a  share  in  the  introduction  of  a  code 
which  pronounces  a  curse  on  those  who  shall  not 
observe  it^  and  afterwards  turned  his  back  upon 
all  ritual  law,  but  also  that  he  allowed  the  book 
of  his  prophecies  to  go  forth  (Jer.  xxxvi.  4,  5,  32) 
with  the  record  of  his  inconsistency  on  its  face. 
Had  not  the  pro])het  of  Anathoth  trouble  enough 
in  his  lifetime  that  he  must  be  thus  tortured  in  mod- 
ern days?  Or  are  we  to  say  that  a  character  so 
vacillating  deserved  all  that  he  suffered?  Yet  Vatke 
would  buihl  him  a  sepulchre,  by  claiming  him  as 
the  earliest  witness  for  the  late  origin  and  unliis- 
torical  character  of  the  Mosaic  law.^  It  will  hardly 
be  denied  that  the  prototj^pe  of  modern  critics  is  made 
to  appear  in  rather  a  sorry  character;  for,  if  all  this 
is  true,  he  utters  his  own  condemnation  (Jer.  xiv. 
14).  Again,  it  is  not  easy  to  comprehend  how 
Kzekiol,  pining  over  the  low  condition  of  his  country- 
men in  exile,  and  reaching  those  spiritual  intuitions 
expressed   in  his  vision  of  tlie  dry  bones,  and  the 

1  Wollhausen,  Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  403. 

2  Bibl  Theol..  p.  220  t. ;  Brodenkamp,  Gesetz  und  Prophoton,  p.  106. 


Laio  and  Prophecy.  209 

waters  issuing  from  the  sanctuary,  should  at  the 
same  time  believe  that  the  remedy  tor  his  people's  mis- 
Ibrtuues  was  to  be  found  in  a  minute  ol)servance  of 
ceremonial  ordinances,  and  occupy  himself  with  a 
codification— on  a  limited  scale— of  Temple  ritual, 
as  if  the  putting  down  of  Levites  and  the  putting 
up  of  priests  was  to  bring  al)out  a  national  revival. 
Nor  does  he,  in  point  of  fact,  represent  things  in 
that  order.  All  these  things  are  good  enough  when 
the  people  are  of  one  mind  in  serving  their  Lord, 
and  desire  to  give  expression  to  their  active  reli- 
gious life:  they  are  absolutely  powerless  to  produce 
such  a  life,  as  all  the  prophets  well  knew. 

In  order  to  perceive  how  the  prophets  stood  to  the 
law,  we  must  take  into  account  their  whole  position 
as  religious  teachers,  and  their  relation  to  the  re- 
ligious movement  of  the  nation.  Kuenen,  as  we 
have  seen  in  another  connection,^  insists  upon  the 
common  ground  on  which  people  and  prophets  stood 
— viz.,  that  Jahaveh  was  Israel's  God,  and  Israel 
Jahaveh's  people.  This,  he  says,  can  be  traced 
back  to  Moses  himself,  whose  ' '  great  work  and  en- 
during merit  "  it  was  ^^  not  that  he  introduced  into 
Israel  any  particular  religious  forms  and  practices, 
but  that  he  established  the  service  of  Jahveh  among 
his  people  upon  a  moral  footing.  '  I  will  be  to  you 
a  God,  and  ye  shall  be  to  rae  a  people.'  So  speaks 
Jahveh,  through  Moses,  to  the  Israelitish  tribes.^ 
This  reciprocal  covenant  between  Jahveh  and  His 
people,  sealed  by  the  deliverance  from  Egyptian 
bondage,  is  guaranteed  by  the  fact  that  the  ark, 

1  See  chap.  xii.  p.  307.       -  Exod.  vl.  7;  Levit.  xxvi.  45;  Deut.  xxix.  13. 


210  Early  Beligion  of  Israel. 

Jahvch'i^  dwelling-place,  accompanies  the  Israelites 
on  the  journey  in  the  desert,  and  afterwards  remains 
established  in  their  midst."  ^  Kuenen  thus  admits 
that  there  was  a  ^'reciprocal  covenant  between 
Jahveh  and  His  people,"  sealed  by  a  historical  oc- 
currence, and  vouched  for  by  the  existence  of  a 
religious  symbol.  We  have  already  argued  (p.  338  f.) 
that  such  a  covenant  is  inconceivable  without  some 
attendant  ceremonial  institutions;  and  at  this  initial 
point,  it  seems,  we  may  find  the  explanation  of  the 
real  attitude  of  the  prophets  to  the  law.  Kuenen 
himself  hints  at  it  when  he  says,  '^  On  their  part  the 
people  must  remain  faithful  to  the  conditions  of  the 
pact  concluded  with  Jahveh.  These  conditions  are 
principally  moral  ones.  This  is  the  great  thing. 
Jahveh  is  distinguished  from  the  rest  of  the  gods  in 
this,  that  he  will  be  served,  not  merely  by  sacrifices 
and  feasts,  but  also,  nay,  in  the  first  place,  by  the 
observance  of  the  moral  commandments  Avhich  form 
the  chief  contents  of  the  ten  words.  "-^  Quite  so;  and 
this  is  just  what  all  the  Biblical  writers  say.  But 
why  slip  in  this,  ''not  merely  by  sacrifices  and 
feasts,"  if  these  are  not  only  not  commanded,  but 
actually  wrong?  There  can  be  no  doubt  wliatever 
that  the  people  regarded  sacrifices  and  ceremonies  as 
observances  well-pleasing  to  God,  and  signs  of  their 
adherence  to  tlie  Covenant.  It  is  doubtful  how  a 
people,  situated  as  they  were,  could  have  kept  up 
their  recollection  of  the  Covenant  relation  without 
outward  service  and  ceremony.     Have  we,  in  this 

1  Rollg.  of  Israel,  vol.  1.  pp.  292,  293. 

«Ibid.,  vol.  I.  p.  293.    Cf.  Allan  Menzles,  p.  21. 


Laiv  and  Prophecy.  211 

nineteenth  century,  got  so  far  that  we  can  dispense 
with  outward  observances  which  we  regard  as  di- 
vinely appointed  or  divinely  approved?  Or  if  the 
prophets  disagreed  with  this  deeply  rooted  feeling  in 
the  popular  mind,  inseparably  linked  with  that  con- 
viction which  Kuenen  says  prophets  and  people  held 
in  common,  they  not  only  fail  to  give  us  clear  indica- 
tions of  the  fact,  but  they  are  in  opposition  to  the 
writers  of  prophetic  spirit  and  to  the  prophetic  men 
who  guided  the  nation  in  early  times.  For  from  the 
very  beginning  sacrifice  appears  as  a  regular  and 
acceptable  expression  of  devotion.  The  earliest  of 
all  the  codes,  the  book  of  the  Covenant,  occurring  in 
a  prophetic  writing,  and  containing  prescriptions  of 
a  ceremonial  as  well  as  of  a  moral  kind,  proves  the 
close  union  of  morality  and  observance  from  the  first, 
and  shows  that,  in  the  constitution  of  Israel,  and  in 
the  conception  of  the  nation,  the  two  are  inseparable. 
And  if,  according  to  Kuenen,  the  people  were  right 
in  the  matter  of  fact  as  to  a  covenant  dating  from  the 
time  of  Moses,  and  had,  from  that  time  onwards, 
practised  sacrifices  and  other  observances  as  marks  of 
their  allegiance  to  their  covenant  God,  it  will  require 
more  than  the  citation  of  a  few  rhetorical  passages 
to  prove  that  the  prophets  regarded  sacrifice  and 
observance  in  themselves  as  wrong,  or  of  mere  hu- 
man device.  Kuenen  himself,  in  the  passage  quoted 
from  him,  gives  the  key  to  the  true  exegesis  of  such 
passages:  ^^Not  merely  by  sacrifices  and  feasts, 
])ut  also,  nay,  in  the  first  i)lace,  by  the  observance  of 
the  moral  commandments. ''  The  prophets  are,  in  fact, 
in  all  such  polemic,  combating  the  germ  of  what  be- 


212  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

came  the   monstrous  doctrine   of  Rabbinism,   that 
Israel  was  created  in  order  to  observe  the  law. 

This  attitude  of  the  prophets  to  the  law  is  exhib- 
ited in  the  circumstances  of  the  time  of  Josiah  which 
culminated  in  his  reformation.  When  it  is  said  that 
the  worship  of  the  high  places  had  become  so  cor- 
rupt that  a  reformation  was  felt  to  be  necessary,  let 
us  be  careful  to  understand  what  that  means.  It 
was  not  that  at  many  high  places  there  was  rendered 
to  Jahaveh  a  worship  which  should  have  been  ren- 
dered to  Him  at  one  central  sanctuary.  The  Avor- 
ship  of  the  Bamoth  was  part  of  a  great  national 
defection.  The  needed  reformation  had  much  more 
to  do,  as  Wellhausen  admits,  than  to  gather  into 
one  central  place  all  the  abuses  of  many  high  places; 
and  it  is  altogether  a  weak  understatement  of  the 
case  to  say  that  ^  ^  even  Jerusalem  and  the  house  of 
Jehovah  there  might  need  some  cleansing,  but  it  was 
clearly  entitled  to  a  preference  over  the  obscure  local 
altars."^  There  was  required  above  all  things  a 
reformation  of  religion,  not  merely  of  worship;  and 
the  prophets  were  not  the  men — Jeremiah  certainly 
was  not  the  man — to  rest  satisfied  with  anything  else. 
The  message  of  Huldah  the  prophetess,  on  the  occa- 
sion of  the  discovery  of  the  law-book,  foretold  ''evil 
upon  this  place,"  '^ because  they  liave  forsaken  me 
and  have  burned  incense  unto  other  gods,  that  they 
might  provoke  me  to  anger  with  all  the  work  of 
their  hands"  (2  Kings  xxii.  17).  And  so  we  see 
that  the  work  done  by  Josiah  was  of  a  thorough 
kind;    the    co-operation  of  priests,   prophets,    and 

1  WeUhausen,  p.  27. 


Laiv  and  Prophecy.  213 

people  Tvas  indicative  of  a  movement  of  the  national 
conscience;  and  the  evils  put  away  are  of  a  much 
more  serious  kind  than  merely  the  worshipping  of 
Jahaveh  at  various  high  places.  ''The  king  com- 
manded Hilkiah  the  high  priest,  and  the  priests  of 
the  second  order,  and  the  keepers  of  the  door,  to 
bring  forth  out  of  the  temple  of  Jahaveh  all  the  ves- 
sels that  were  made  for  Baal,  and  for  the  Asherah, 
and  for  all  the  host  of  heaven,"  &c.,  &c.  (2  Kings 
xxiii.  4  If.),  beginning  with  a  cleansing  of  the  cen- 
tral sanctuary  itself.  And  let  it  not  be  supposed 
that  these  were  recognised  up  till  this  time  as  ele- 
ments of  the  national  worship.  The  book  of  the 
Covenant  itself — which  is  supposed  to  have  been  in 
existence  for  two  hundred  years — had  said,  imme- 
diately before  the  words  relied  on  as  allowing  the 
multiplicity  of  sanctuaries  :  ' '  Ye  shall  not  make 
other  gods  with  me;  gods  of  silver  or  gods  of  gold, 
ye  shall  not  make  unto  jou  "  (Exod.  xx.  23);  and 
had  reiterated  the  warning  against  making  ' '  men- 
tion of  the  name  of  other  gods"  (Exod.  xxiii.  13), 
and  bowing  down  to  the  gods  of  the  nations,  or  serv- 
ing them,  or  doing  after  their  works,  but ' '  thou  shalt 
utterly  overthrow  them,  and  break  in  pieces  their  pil- 
lars "  (Exod.  xxiii.  24).  These  things  were  indeed 
thoroughly  inconsistent  with  the  whole  position 
which — by  the  confession  of  the  nation  as  implied  in 
the  prophetic  utterances — Israel  sustained  to  Jaha- 
veh; and  if  the  sin  of  them  did  not  come  home  to 
them  through  })rophetic  rebukes  or  through  their 
knowledge  oi' the  book  of  the  Covenant,  the  discovery 
of  a  hundred  other  codes  could  not  liave  convinced 


214  Early  ReUfjlon  of  Israel. 

them.  The  truth  is  that  the  evils  had  pressed  upon 
the  hearts  of  good  men  for  long  before:  Hezekiah 
had  partially  done  what  Josiah  now  did  more  thor- 
oughly; and  the  powerful  upheaval  of  public  senti- 
ment that  was  produced  cannot  have  an  adequate 
cause  in  a  mere,  or  in  a  primary,  desire  to  centralise 
the  worship.  In  a  word,  the  idea  of  worship  in  one 
place  cannot  be  taken  by  itself  and  apart  from  the 
nature  of  the  worship  which  Jahaveh  claimed.  The 
tendency  towards  reform  was  there  before  the  alleged 
contrivance  of  producing  a  code  was  resorted  to. 
The  book  did  not  produce  what  was  the  essential 
part  of  the  reform;  and  the  reform  is  quite  conceiv- 
able on  the  supposition  of  the  discovery  of  any  code, 
and  had  already  proceeded  a  great  way  before  the 
book  of  the  law  was  brought  to  light. 

Nor  were  the  circumstances  materially  different 
when  the  later  reformation  took  place  after  the  ex- 
ile. The  little  community  under  Joshua  and  Zerub- 
babcl  had  returned  to  Jerusalem,  and  held  a  strug- 
gling existence  for  more  than  half  a  century^  before 
Ezra  made  his  apj^earance  with  his  l)Ook,  which  is 
said  to  have  been  the  Pentateuch  law  now  first  come 
into  existence.  It  was  the  sense  of  tlicir  national 
])()sition  and  national  caHing  that  had  l)rouglit  them 
thither;  tlicy  did  not  come  for  the  i)urpose  of  ob- 
serving a  ritual  law,  but  for  the  purpose  of  kee})ing 
alive  a  nationality  and  exiiibiting  their  faith  in  the 
divine    ])roinises.     This   mucli  tlie  teaching  of  the 

1  Edict  of  CyniM,  538.  Tho  return  uf  exil<^s  under  Zerubbnhel  nnd 
.Tt.Hluui  was  in  n.  c.  WM\,  and  twiMity  yoars  later  (HafJiTftl  and  Zechariah) 
thoTHiupli-  was  .-onsecrated.  Tho  arrival  of  Ezra  was  In  458.  Law 
proiuulgutod,  Ui.    CI.  WullLauseu,  p.  ^'Ji  IT. 


Law  and  PropJiecy.  215 

prophets  liad  effected,  though  the  fruits  of  prophetic 
teaching  were  tardy,  and  brought  to  maturity  by  the 
sufferings  of  the  exile.  I  am  willing  to  admit  that 
the  influence  of  Ezekiel  was  a  powerful  factor  in  lead- 
ing to  the  restoration,  but  I  see  another  direction  of 
his  influence  than  that  of  codification  of  law.  As  in 
a  former  chapter  I  maintained  that  the  doubtful  or 
figurative  language  of  a  writer  should  be  interpreted 
by  his  clearer  and  more  unequivocal  utterances,  so 
I  should  say  here  timt  we  are  to  look  not  to  the  pro- 
gramme of  legislation  which  p]zekiel  saw  in  vision, 
but  to  the  reviving  Spirit,  breathing  upon  the  dry 
bones,  as  the  motive  power  which  was  uppermost  in 
the  mind  of  the  prophet  of  the  exile. 

The  more  closely  the  matter  is  looked  at,  the  more 
clearly  it  will  appear  that  it  is  impossible  to  dissever 
the  moral  from  the  ceremonial  part  of  the  law  of  Is- 
rael. Moses  himself  is  represented  as  a  prophet;  ^  and 
prophecy  has  its  legal,  just  as  the  law  has  its  prophet- 
ical, side.  The  idea  of  holiness  is  common  to  both. 
The  law  links  even  the  meanest  ceremonial  obser- 
vance with  this  moral  attribute:  ^^  Ye  shall  be  holy 
men  unto  me,  neither  shall  ye  eat  any  flesh  that  is 
torn  of  beasts  in  the  field;  "^  and  prophecy  recog- 
nises a  clean  and  an  unclean  land  and  offerings.-^ 
Even  the  prophet  who  speaks  most  exclusively  of 
the  Holy  One  of  Israel  (Isa.  Iv.  5)  expresses  abhor- 
rence of  the  eating  of  swine's  flesh  and  so  forth 
(Isa.    Ixv.    4;   Ixvi.    17).      The   rules   for   purifica- 

1  Deut.  xvlil.  15 ;  Hosea  xli.  13. 

2  Exod.  xxii.  31.     Comp.  Levit.  xi.  44-47 ;  xlx.  2,  15-19. 
8  Amos  vll.  17:  Hosea  ix.  3-5. 


21 G  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

tions  and  sacrifices  indicate  clearly,  not  only  iiiat 
tliese  observances  were  of  an  educative  character, 
but  also  that  they  did  not  come  in  the  place  of 
moral  requirements,  as  if  they  were  ends  in  them- 
selves. The  sacrifices  and  offerings  do  not  effect  atone- 
ment for  moral  offences,  nor  do  they  constitute  the 
^vhole  religious  service  of  Israel.  The  sins  atoned 
for  are  those  that  affect  the  theocratic  relation  of 
the  people,  the  offerings  are  the  outward  signs  of 
the  inward  homage  due  to  Jaliaveh.  We  need  not, 
indeed,  wonder  that  the  prophets,  in  the  situation 
in  which  they  found  tliemselves  before  the  exile, 
laid  so  little  stress  on  the  ritual  worship,  for  it  was 
powerless  to  cure  the  evils  which  they  deplored.  To 
what  purpose,  indeed,  would  it  have  been  for  a 
preacher  of  righteousness  like  Amos,  addressing  a 
people  who  trampled  on  the  most  fundamental  laws 
of  humanity,  to  urge  to  the  more  sedulous  perform- 
ance of  outward  acts  of  worship;  or  for  a  i)rophet 
with  insight  into  God's  love  such  as  Hosea  enjoyed, 
to  direct  a  people  openly  apostate  and  idolatrous  in 
heart  to  begin  with  a  mere  reformation  of  cultus? 
Isaiali  again  and  his  fellow-prophets  of  the  south  had 
before  them  a  people — such  as  all  ages  and  all  coun- 
tries have  produced — wlio  thought  to  make  up  for 
wickedness  of  life  and  hollowness  of  heart  hy  loud- 
sounding  devotion  and  ostentatious  worship;  and  it 
is  no  wonder  that  such  men  contemptuously  scouted 
the  whole  system  of  outward  observance,  which  was 
that  and  notliing  more.  It  was  needless  to  insist 
upon  the  sign  when  the  thing  signified  was  wanting 
— for  the  outward  form  was  then  a  gross  lie;  and 


Laio  and  Prophecy.  217 

just  because  the  mission  of  tlie  prophets  was  to  in- 
sist upon  the  underlying  moral  requirements  of  the 
law,  for  that  reason  they  made  light  of  its  ceremo- 
nial elements,  which  had  no  basis  nor  reason  for  ex- 
istence apart  from  these  moral  requirements.  On 
the  other  hand,  we  find  the  prophet  Haggai,  when 
his  contemporaries  in  the  coldness  of  their  devotion 
committed  the  opposite  mistake  from  pre-exilic  Is- 
rael, reproving  them  for  the  scantiness  of  their  offer- 
ings; although  both  he  and  Zechariah,  who  laboured 
for  the  restoration  of  the  Temple  and  its  service,  are 
quite  clear  as  to  the  supreme  duty  of  heart  religion 
and  the  inutility  of  a  mere  opus  operatuyn.^  The 
position  of  Malachi  is  to  be  particularly  noted,  be- 
cause in  him  we  find  a  distinctly  ceremonial  tone 
(chap,  i.),  and  because  he  belongs  to  the  time  of  the 
alleged  introduction  of  the  Priestly  Code.  It  is  very 
hard  to  believe  that  a  priesthood  such  as  he  chides 
(in  chap,  ii.)  was  fit  to  be  trusted  with  the  task  of 
elaborating  an  authoritative  code.^  It  is  much 
more  likely  that  the  prophet  reproves  them  for  devia- 
tion from  a  standard  that  was  far  older  and  much 
higher.  In  any  case  it  is  to  be  observed  that  this 
prophet,  though  technical  as  any  priest  could  be,  is 
at  one  with  all  the  prophets  as  to  the  essentials  of 
religion. 

It  is  inaccurate,  therefore,  to  represent  the  pro- 
phetic and  priestly  classes  as  opposed,  and  to  make 
the  history  turn  upon  the  preponderance  of  the  one 
over  the  other.     There  was  no  greater  antagonism 

1  Haggai  il.  12  f. ;  Zech.  vii.  6,  9,  10. 

2  Bredenkamp,  Gesetz  und  Propheten,  p.  120. 


218  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

than  that  which  in  a  normal  condition  of  things  ex- 
ists between  the  inner  truth  and  its  outward  mani- 
festation— which,  however,  becomes  pronounced 
when  the  outward  expression  is  made  the  whole,  or 
is  represented  as  having  the  vitality  and  the  impor- 
tance of  the  inner  truth.  Such  times  there  were  in 
the  history  of  Israel,  as  in  the  religious  history  of  all 
nations,  when  the  priesthood,  peculiarly  liable  to 
settle  down  to  formality  and  routine,  and  peculiarly 
liable  to  the  temptations  besetting  any  privileged 
order,  encouraged  the  people  to  boast,  saying,  "  The 
temple  of  the  Lord  are  we, "or  even  exercised  their 
office  for  their  own  gain.  At  such  times  the  pro- 
phetic voice  was  raised  in  scathing  rebukes,  whose 
terms  almost  lead  one  to  conclude  that  in  the  pro- 
phetic estimation  the  whole  priestly  order,  and  all 
the  ceremonies  over  which  they  presided,  were  in 
their  essence  wrong.  Yet  even  in  the  midst  of  such 
rebukes  there  is  a  tone  of  respect  for  the  law,  and  a 
recognition  of  the  sacred  function  of  the  priest.  So 
also  when  we  come  to  any  crisis  in  the  history  in 
which  a  positive  advance  is  made,  we  perceive  that 
it  is  not  by  a  conquest  of  one  party  over  the  other, 
but  by  the  hearty  co-operation  of  both,  that  the 
movement  of  reform  or  advance  succeeds.  Moses, 
the  forerunner  of  the  prophets,  has  Aaron  the  priest 
beside  him;  and  Joshua  is  still  surrounded  by  priests 
in  the  carrying  out  of  his  work.  Samuel  is  both 
priest  and  prophet;  David  and  Solomon  in  the  same 
way  are  served  or  admonished  by  both.  In  Josiah's 
time  we  see  the  priest  Ililkiah  as  eager  for  the  in- 
troduction of  reform  as  the  i)rophet  or  prophets  who 


[Law  and  Prophecy,  219 

prepared — as  is  alleged — the  Code  which  was  to  be 
recognised;^  although  the  Code  was  not  to  be  to  the 
advantage  of  the  Jerusalem  priesthood,  according  to 
the  modern  view  of  it,  for  it  was  to  bring  to  the 
capital  all  the  priests  of  the  high  places  who  should 
so  desire,  and  thus  reduce  the  emoluments  and 
lower  the  prestige  of  the  ministers  of  the  central 
sanctuary.  Jeremiah  was  of  the  priests  of  Anathoth, 
and  Ezekiel,  too,  was  a  priest-prophet.  So  that  at 
every  turning-point  in  the  nation's  life,  when  an  ad- 
vance was  made,  or  a  return  to  a  better  mind,  the 
two  classes  are  seen  working  in  harmon}'.  Which 
is  just  saying  in  other  words  that  the  better  mind 
resulted  in  a  better  life,  and  that  faithfulness  of 
heart  was  expressed  in  the  better  observance  of  the 
authoritative  forms  of  religion. 

On  this  subject,  as  on  many  others  connected  with 
the  history  of  Israel,  we  must  beware  of  concluding 
that  distinctions  which  we  can  abstractly  draw,  and 
of  which  the  history  shows  the  possibility,  were  act- 
ually drawn  at  the  time.  ' '  The  passion  of  the 
human  mind,"  says  Dr.  A.  B.  Davidson,  "is  for 
distinctions  and  classification.  Broad  distinctions 
are  rare  in  the  Old  Testament.  The  course  of  reve- 
lation is  like  a  river,  which  cannot  be  cut  up  into 
sections.  The  springs  at  least  of  all  prophecy  can 
be  seen  in  the  two  prophets  of  northern  Israel;  but 

1  And  so  some  would  have  it  that  the  Code  is  a  coinposite  work. 
"  The  Deuteronomic  torah,"  says  Cheyne,  "is  in  fact  tlie  joint  work  of  at 
least  two  of  the  noblest  members  of  the  prophetic  and  the  priestly 
orders."— Jeremiah,  His  Life  and  Times,  p.  63  f.  One  may  obtain,  from 
this,  some  idea  of  the  critical  principles  on  which  the  separation  of 
sources  is  effected,  and  may  be  inclined  to  ask,  if  two  writers  of  differ- 
ent tendencies  could  work  so  harmoniously  here,  why  similar  tend- 
encies should  be  put  so  far  apart  elsewhere. 


220  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

the  rain  which  fed  those  fountains  fell  in  the  often 
unrecorded  past. "  ^  On  reviewing  the  history  we  may 
perceive  the  two  currents  of  influence,  the  priestly 
and  the  proi)hetic,  and  in  analysing  the  combined 
stream  of  national  life  we  may  be  able  to  separate 
them  in  thought  and  assign  ditferent  effects  to  them 
respectively.  But  we  are  not  for  all  that  to  jump  to 
the  conclusion  that  priests  and  prophets  were 
arrayed  in  hostile  camps,  and  existed  like  two 
parties  in  a  modern  state.  The  prophets  are  as 
free  in  their  denunciations  of  prophets  when  these 
are  unfaithful,  as  they  are  in  their  rebukes  of  the 
excesses  of  the  priests.  The  truth  is,  that  on  this 
low  view  of  a  struggle  of  parties,  the  history  of 
Israel  is  as  devoid  of  interest,  as  it  is  incapable  of 
explanation.  When  it  did  come  to  a  struggle  of 
parties  in  Israel,  in  the  later  stages  of  the  history, 
when  some  leaned  to  Egypt  and  some  to  Assyria, 
the  days  of  Israel's  independence  were  numbered. 
The  thing  that  made  two  parties  in  ancient  Israel 
was  not  the  question  of  ritual  or  no  ritual,  not  the 
question  of  written  Torah  or  oral  Torah,  but  the 
question  of  fidelity  to  their  national  God,  and  purity 
from  heathen  contamination.  The  daily  observances 
of  the  Temple  nnght  go  on  unrecorded  for  years — 
as  I  believe  they  went  on  far  more  regularly  than  is 
now  supposed — and  call  for  no  remark.  But  as 
soon  as  these  were  rested  in  as  the  essentials  of  re- 
ligion, or  improved  and  adorned  by  a  tampering 
with  heathen  ways  and  an  aping  of  idolatrous  rites, 
then  the  prophetic  voice  was  raised,   and  in  such 

1  Expositor,  third  series,  vol.  vl.  p.  163. 


Law  and  Prophecy.  221 

terms  that  we  perceive  how  all  the  time  these  men 
knew  wherein  the  essentials  of  true  religious  wor- 
ship consisted. 

Though,  therefore,  the  legalistic  tendency  set  in 
after  the  great  prophets  had  done  their  work,  the 
two  things  were  not  cause  and  eft'ect.  It  was  not 
the  ' ^  prophets  that  were  the  destroyers  of  old  Israel," 
but  it  was  Israel  that  destroyed  itself.  A  mistake 
may  be  very  readily  committed  from  taking  too 
narrow  a  view  of  development,  and  assuming  that 
what  is  immediately  subsequent  to  something  else 
results  naturally  from  it.  There  are  r^.-actions  and 
recoils  as  well  as  direct  influences  in  the  same  line. 
The  true  succession  of  Old  Testament  prophets  is 
found  in  the  Gospel,  not  in  the  scribes.  Though 
Jesus  Christ  followed  the  scribes.  He  did  not  develop 
their  teaching.  He  did  not,  however,  deny  its  his- 
torical basis.  He  was  the  direct  successor  of  the 
prophets,  but  He  assumed  and  took  for  granted  that 
law  preceded  prophecy,  and  that  law  was  also  of 
divine  authority.  From  His  polemic  with  the  scribes 
and  Pharisees  of  His  day,  one  might  hastily  claim 
Him  as  maintaining  the  human  origin  of  the  Codes, 
and  the  natural  basis  of  sacrifice.  Yet,  though  He 
rejected  the  traditions  and  commandments  of  men. 
He  attended  even  to  the  ceremonial  of  the  law,  and 
in  His  life  and  teaching  treated  the  law  as  given 
through  Moses  by  divine  authority. 


CHAPTER  XYIII. 

CONCLUSION. 

The  modern  theory  is  "  thorough-going,'^  hut  does  not  do  jus- 
tice to  the  facts  of  the  case — Its  arbitrary  treatment  of  the 
writers  and  books  of  the  Old  Testament — Its  weakness 
"as  a  whole,^'  when  great  crises  and  turning-points  are 
to  be  explained — Does  not  go  to  the  core  of  the  religion, 
hut  divells  on  external  details — Bejecting  the  supernatural, 
it  is  itself  unnatural — Even  on  its  literary  side,  not  so 
strong  as  it  seems — Objection  to  the  Biblical  theory  that  it 
does  not  make  rooni  for  development — Objection  answered: 
true  develo2)ment  exhibited — The  ap2)eal  to  religions  of 
'^'  primitire peoples'"'  considered — The  Semitic  disposition 
to  religion — Beference  to  early  chapters  of  Genesis — Com- 
parative  religion — Bearing  of  the  whole  subject  on  Inspira- 
tion. 

We  liave  tlius  endeavoured  to  estimate  fairly  the 
two  theories  of  Israel's  earlier  religious  history. 
No  attempt  has  been  made  to  present  all  the  details 
in  wliich  the  theories  are  opposed;  but  eonsideration 
lias  ])een  fixed  on  the  fundamental  lines  and  underly- 
ing i)rincii)les.  Our  conclusion  has  been,  that  the 
Biblical  theory,  when  not  burdened  with  assumptions 
with  which  it  has  been  often  "traditionally  "  encum- 
bered, will  stand  the  test  of  a  sober  and  common- 
sense  criticism,  as  an  account  of  the  existence  in 


Conclusion.  223 

Israel,  in  early  or  so-called  pre-prophetic  times,  of 
xerj  distinctive  religious  conceptions  and  religious 
ordinances,  obtained  in  connection  with  well-marked 
historical  events  and  under  well-determined  histori- 
cal conditions. 

The  modern  critical  theory,  if  it  has  been  able  to 
point  out  difficulties  connected  with  the  Biblical 
theory,  especially  as  it  has  been  traditionally  main- 
tained, raises  difficulties  of  a  much  more  serious 
kind  in  the  way  of  its  own  acceptance.  At  first 
sight,  it  has  all  the  attractions  of  a  '^good-going" 
hypothesis;  for  it  promises  to  exhibit  the  growth  of 
religious  conceptions  and  religious  observances  from 
the  lowest  stage  to  their  finally  developed  phases; 
and,  considering  the  long  course  which  Israel's  his- 
tory ran,  and  the  broad  field  available  for  observa- 
tion, this  is  what  we  should  .expect  to  find  practi- 
cable. But  the  theory  is  too  thorough-going,  for  it 
goes  in  the  teeth  of  evident  obstacles,  and  refuses  to 
bend  its  way  to  embrace  plain  facts;  and  what  wc 
want  is  a  tlieory  that  will  give  the  best  explanation 
of  things  that  cannot  be  disputed.  Were  it  the  case 
tliat  we  knew  practically  nothing  of  the  develop- 
ment of  Israel's  religion  in  Palestine,  it  might  l)e 
rcry  well  for  a  tlieory  to  sketch  a  scheme  which 
would  be  another  contribution  to  the  histoVies  of 
religious  thouglit.  But  there  are  books,  there  are 
men,  there  are  abiding  effects  to  be  accounted  for; 
and  in  face  of  these  the  modern  theory  shows  its 
weakness.  We  have  conducted  our  inquiry  on  the 
narrowest  possible  grounds, by  restricting  ourselves  to 
compositions  whose  dates  arc  assigned  by  the  critics 


224  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

themselves;^  and  on  that  narrow  ground  I  am  pre- 
pared to  rest  my  objections  to  the  two  cardinal  points 
of  the  theory.  On  the  one  hand,  I  maintain  that  the 
earliest  writing  prophets,  Amos  and  Ilosea,  give 
clear  evidence  that  the  ethic  and  spiritual  nature  of 
the  religion  was  apprehended  and  firmly  possessed 
in  their  day,  and  long  before  it — evidence  which  can 
only  be  set  aside  by  a  forced  interpretation  of  some 
passages  and  an  excision  of  others.  On  the  other 
hand,  I  maintain  that  the  existence,  at  what  is 
called  the  earliest  literary  age,  of  these  same  books 
and  likewise  of  the  book  of  the  Covenant  in  the 
heart  of  a  Jehovistic  writing,  ascribing  to  Moses 
authoritative  and  specifically  religious  institutions, 
relating  to  sacrifice  and  ritual  as  well  as  idolatry 
and  morals,  is  irreconcilable  with  the  fundamental 
positions  of  the  modern  theory  on  the  subject  of  law. 
Wcllliauscn,  in  one  place,  says  it  would  not  be 
surprising,  considering  the  whole  character  of  the 
polemic  against  Grafs  hypothesis,  if  the  next  objec- 
tion should  be  that  it  is  not  able  to  construct  the 
history.^  My  great  objection  to  the  theory  is,  not 
that  it  cannot  construct  a  history,  for  the  ingenuity 
of  critical  writers  is  equal  to  tlmt,  but  that  it  does 
not  leave  sound  materials  out  of  which  a  credible 
history  can  be  constructed.  The  hypothesis  of  Graf 
carries  with  it  the  assumption  that  tlie  narratives 
accompanying  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  arc  not 
history  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word  at  all,  but 
tiie  product  of  late  imaginative  writers,  and,  in 
short,  fictitious.     And  not  only  are  the  narratives  of 

'  £00  Nolo  XXX.I.  3  Hl8t.  or  Israel,  p.  367.  footnoto. 


Conclusion.  225 

tlie  Pentateuch  so  treated;  the  historical  and  pro- 
phetical books  are  in  a  similar  manner  discredited, 
so  as  to  be  admissible  as  testimony  only  after  they 
have  been  expurgated  or  adjusted  on  the  principles 
of  the  underlying  theory.  The  historical  books,  we 
are  told,  were  written  long  after  the  events  they 
relate;  and  even  when  they  contain  the  records  of 
historical  facts,  these  records  are  overlaid  with  later 
interpretations  of  the  facts,  or  even  glossed  over  to 
obliterate  them.  Even  the  prophetical  books  are  not 
to  be  relied  upon  to  determine  the  religious  history; 
for  the  books,  in  the  first  place,  have  undergone 
great  alterations  in  the  process  of  canonisation — and 
in  the  second  place,  even  where  there  is  an  unam- 
biguous declaration  of  a  prophet  as  to  a  certain  se- 
quence of  events,  it  is  open  to  us  to  accept  or  reject 
his  statement  on  ' '  critical "  grounds.  Modern  criti- 
cal writers,  in  fact,  can  scarcely  lay  their  hands  on 
a  single  book  and  say.  Here  is  a  document  to  be  re- 
lied upon  to  give  a  fair,  unbiassed,  untarnished  ac- 
count of  things  as  they  were.  The  blemishes  that 
criticism  seeks  to  remove  are  not  such  as  may  be 
contracted  by  ordinary  ancient  documents  in  the 
course  of  their  literary  transmission.  They  have 
come  into  the  documents  in  the  interests  of  a  theory 
(and  indeed  they  have  a  wonderful  coherence  in 
tenor),  and  by  another  theory  they  are  to  be  elimi- 
nated. The  literary  task  of  critical  writers,  there- 
fore, is  not  so  much  to  discover  and  account  for 
facts  of  a  histoi-y  long  past,  as  to  account  for  the  ac- 
count whicli  later  writers  give  of  them.  The  history 
which  Wellhauscn  constructs  is  in  fact  a  ''history of 


2-2r)  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

tlie  tradition  "";  and  in  many  cases  it  seems  a  labori- 
ciis  endeavour  to  show  how  something  very  definite 
grew  out  of  nothing  very  appreciable.  The  further 
one  follows  the  processes,  the  more  apparent  it  be- 
comes that  the  endeavour  is  not  so  much  to  find  out 
by  fair  interpretation  what  the  writer  says,  as  to 
discover  his  motive  for  saying  it,  or  what  he  wishes 
to  conceal.  He  belongs  to  some  class,  or  has  some 
political  expediency  to  serve;  or  he  lives  in  a  circle 
of  certain  ideas,  and  these  tendencies  are  made  to 
give  birth  to  the  facts,  instead  of  being,  as  is  more 
likely,  the  result  of  the  facts.  ' '  The  idea  as  idea  is 
older  than  the  idea  in  history,"  says  Wellhausen;' 
and  he  is  continually  applying  this  maxim  in  the 
sense  that  when  an  idea  takes  possession  of  the  lead- 
ing men  of  a  certain  time,  they  straightway  proceed 
to  invest  it  with  a  historical  character,  by  placing 
its  exemplification  or  embodiment  back  at  some  re- 
mote period  of  the  history.  I  think  the  maxim  is 
better  illustrated  im  the  processes  of  Wellhausen  and 
his  school,  who  first  find  an  '^  idea,"  and  then  seek  by 
main  force  to  read  it  into  the  unwilling  documents. 
In  this  way  a  history  is  no  doubt  Constructed.  l)ut 
the  supporting  beams  of  it  are  subjective  prei)()si- 
tions,  and  tlie  materials  are  only  got  by  discrediting 
the  sources  from  whicli  they  are  drawn. 

I  say  this  is  a  very  serious  attitude  to  assume^ 
towards  the  writers  of  the  Old  Testament  books,  ir 
it  can  in  any  degree  be  justified;  and  if  it  is  not 
well  justified,  it  is  a  very  serious  objection  to  any 
theory  that  requires  it.  The  men  wlio  niouldcd  the 
'  Hi»t.  of  iHi-ftol.  p.  ;Uk 


Conclusion,  227 

history  of  Israel  were  the  men  who  had  most  to  do 
with  the  production  and  preservation  of  tlie  national 
literature.  We  know  what  sort  of  men  ihay  were. 
But,  on  the  modern  theor}^,  the  greatest  characters 
in  Israel's  history,  instead  of  being  spontaneous  ac- 
tors in  a  great  life-drama,  are  merely  posturing  and 
acting  a  part  on  a  stage.  What  they  give  us  as  his- 
tory is  merely  their  fond  idea  of  what  history  should 
have  been;  in  many  cases  it  is  not  even  so  much,  but 
pure  invention  to  give  a  show  of  antiquity  to  what 
had  to  be  accounted  for  and  magnified  in  their  own 
day.  History  was  never  made  in  this  way.  Men 
that  make  history  such  as  Israel's  history  was,  are 
intent  on  great  purposes,  moved  by  noble  ends;  but 
what  we  are  asked  to  contemplate  at  the  great  crises 
and  turning-points  is  a  set  of  men  thinking  how 
they  will  elaborate  a  scheme  of  history.  Fictions 
become  the  greatest  facts,  and  the  French  critic  has 
carried  out  the  theory  to  its  true  conclusion  when  he 
ascribes  the  great  bulk  of  the  Hebrew  literature  to 
the  free  creation  of  a  school  of  theologians  after  the 
exile.  ''The  theologians  and  writers  of  that  time," 
he  says,  ' '  have  been  able  to  give  such  a  character 
of  life  to  the  creations  of  their  genius  that  posterity 
has  been  thereby  deceived,  and  has  believed  in  a 
Moses  living  1500  years  before  our  era,  whereas 
this  Moses  was  only  created  in  the  fourth  century, 
and  had  no  more  reality  than  an  incomparable  fic- 
tion."^   And  thus  the  great  merit  of  the  Hebrew 

1  Maurice  Vernes,  Resultats  de  TExegi'se  Blblique,  p,  227.  Of  course 
the  conclusions  of  Vernes  are  disowned  by  the  pi-evaiUng  school,  but 
th.Q principle  ot  his  criticism,  the  imagination  of  writers  of  the  exilian 
age,  is  frankly  avowed  by  Wellhausen,  p.  419.    See  Note  XXXII. 


228  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

race,  the  great  quality  for  which  they  have  dis- 
tinguished themselves  in  the  world,  is  their  power 
of  imagination!  Such  a  mode  of  viewing  the  Old 
Testament  writings,  as  the  conduct  of  the  critics 
shows,  leaves  individual  critics  to  construct  each  his 
own  scheme  of  the  history.  To  most  people  it  will 
appear  that,  if  such  a  mode  of  treatment  is  once  in- 
troduced, the  inquiry  into  the  true  course  of  Israel's 
history  is  a  matter  of  the  utmost  uncertainty;  to 
many  the  inquiry  would  probably  cease  to  have 
much  practical  interest. 

It  is  to  be  lamented,  I  think,  that  now  at  the  very 
close  of  the  nineteenth  century  a  tone  of  criticism 
should  reassert  itself  which  is  out  of  harmony  v\'ith 
the  liberal  views  with  which  we  have  been  priding 
ourselves  we  had  learned  to  regard  all  nations.  So 
much  has  our  knowledge  of  the  religions  of  the 
world  extended,  and  our  sympathy  for  the  struggles 
of  the  religious  instinct  been  stirred,  that  we  might 
expect  from  leaders  of  investigation  in  these  sub- 
jects a  disposition  to  look  for  the  best  side  of  all 
religions,  and  to  put  the  most  favourable  construc- 
tion on  the  cftbrts  of  their  founders.  It  is  not  so 
long  ago  that  it  used  to  be  the  orthodox  thing  to 
characterise  the  prophet  of  Arabia  as  a  designer,  a 
schemer,  an  impostor;  but  it  liad  come  to  be  gen- 
erally admitted  that,  in  his  early  struggles  at  least, 
Mohammed  was  a  sincere  inquirer,  following  out 
lines  of  thought  and  ])elief  that  existed  in  a  some- 
what narrow  circle  before  him.  Kucncn,  however, 
has  practically  come  back  to  the  old  position.  Ac- 
cording to   this   view,  Mohammed   had   an   eye  to 


Conclusion.  229 

Christians  and  Jews,  and  counted  upon  the  latter 
particularly  for  recognition  of  his  teaching.  And  so 
he  framed  his  device  of  that  milla  of  Ibrahim,  of 
which  at  first  he  never  thought,  for  ' '  the  opinion 
that  Mohammed  came  to  awaken  and  to  restore 
what  already  existed  amongst  his  people,  if  only  as 
a  faint  reminiscence  of  a  distant  past,  finds  no  sup- 
port in  the  Qoran  when  read  in  tlie  light  of  criti- 
cism."^ Great  is  criticism  of  the  modern  critics! 
It  has  discovered  another  scheme^  like  the  schemes 
and  programmes  and  fictions  of  the  Hebrew  writers. 
And  so  the  boasted  enlightenment  and  toleration  of 
the  nineteenth  century  comes  round  again  to  explain 
the  origin  of  religions  by  the  fanaticism  of  prophets 
and  the  frauds  of  priests.  ^ 

But,  it  is  said,  the  theory  must  be  taken  as  a 
whole,  and  apart  from  varieties  of  opinion  that  may 
be  held  on  details.  It  is  just  when  thus  taken  that 
I  find  the  greatest  difficulty  in  accepting  it,  because 
there  is  so  marked  a  disagreement  between  the 
whole  and  its  component  parts.  There  are  certain 
great  outstanding  facts  whose  existence  cannot  be 
ignored, — such  as  the  prophetic  activity  in  Israel, 
the  belief  in  one  national  or  one  sole  Deity,  the 
national  testimony  to  an  early  history  of  great 
moment,  the  ascription  of  legislation  to  Moses;  and 
the  incompetence  of  the  modern  theory  to  set  these 
in  their  true  perspective  is  very  striking.  On  the 
one  hand,  the   Biblical   theory  gives   definite   con- 

1  National  ReUgions,  p.  19. 

2  A  melancholy  example  Is  furnished  in  Llppert's  '  Allgemeine  Ge- 
schichte  dos  Pricsterthums,'  published  as  recently  as  1884.  Kunig, 
Falsche  Extreme,  p.  2. 


230  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

noctions  for  events,  and  historical  occasions  for 
transitions  and  advances.  On  tlie  other  liaiid,  the 
modern  theory  is  strong  in  minute  analysis,  but 
weak  in  face  of  great  controlling  facts.  It  will 
laboriously  strain  out  a  gnat  in  the  critical  process 
of  determining  the  respective  authors  of  a  complex 
passage,  but  when  it  comes  to  a  real  difficulty  in 
history  it  boldly  swallows  the  camel  and  wipes  its 
mouth,  saying,  ''I  have  eaten  nothing."  Nabiism,, 
or  the  prophetic  activity,  even  Jahavism  itself,  are 
])orrowed  from  the  Canaanites  or  Kenites;  and  when 
it  is  asked  why  the  Canaanites  or  Kenites  did  not 
reach  the  saiuc  truth  that  Israel  attained,  we  get  no 
answer.  And  when  we  ask  what  then  had  Israel  to 
distinguish  it,  the  feeble  answer  is  returned  that 
when  Israel  (for  no  reason  stated)  assumed  Jahaveh 
as  their  national  deity,  they  also  resolved  and  were 
told  that  He  only  (for  no  reason  assigned)  was  to  be 
their  only  God.  And  when  the  undoubtedly  pure 
and  high  conceptions  entertained  by  the  prophets 
are  pointed  out,  and  an  explanation  demanded  of 
their  origin,  we  are  told  that  a  '^conception"  was 
'^  absorbed"  by  the  prophets  and  came  out  in  this 
purified  form ;  but  we  get  no  sufficient  account  of 
the  faculty  that  enabled  the  prophets  to  absorb 
this  and  that,  and  give  forth  a  product  Avhich  is 
entirely  unlike  the  thing  absorbed.  In  the  same 
way  no  satisfactory  account  is  given  of  the  ascrip- 
tion of  law  to  Moses,  and  no  firm  basis  for  the  vari- 
ous Codes.  The  theory  is,  again,  strong  in  details 
of  analysis,  but  weak  in  face  of  a  historical  event. 
No  explanation  is  given  of  the  origin  of  what  is  de- 


Conclusion.  231 

Glared  to  be  the  first  of  all  the  Codes.  When  a 
great  reform  of  religion  such  as  took  place  in  Josiah's 
days  has  to  be  explained,  instead  of  historical  criti- 
cism reconstructing  an  intelligible  historical  situa- 
tion, we  are  shown  how  a  book  was  constructed 
which  brought  it  about.  Though  all  the  scathing 
rebukes  and  denunciations  of  the  prophets  up  to 
this  time  had  been  powerless  to  wean  the  people 
from  their  idolatries,  the  production  in  some  secret 
conclave  of  this  book,  telling  unheard-of  stories 
about  Moses,  and  laying  down  on  his  authority  laws 
which  were  then  partly  impracticable,  rouses  a 
whole  nation.  And  again,  in  the  captivity,  after  the 
Temple  had  been  destroyed  and  the  people  scattered 
for  their  sins,  the  main  thing  the  best  of  them 
think  about  is  the  gathering  together  of  the  ritual 
practices  of  the  priests,  and,  instead  of  being  hum- 
bled for  their  transgressions,  imagining  ever  so 
many  great  things  their  nation  had  been  and  done 
in  the  early  ages.  Upon  the  strength  of  this  a 
colony  braves  the  hardships  of  a  long  journey  from 
Babylon  to  Jerusalem  to  set  up  the  worship  which 
they  had  agreed  was  the  right  ritual  to  practise. 
This  falling  back  at  every  stage  upon  the  introduc- 
tion of  some  new  factor,  which  does  not  grow  out  of 
the  history  itself,  but  is  made  to  give  a  turn  to  the 
whole  history,  is  artificial.  Jahaveh,  introduced 
from  the  Kenites,  becomes  the  distinctive  deity  of 
Israel.  Prophetism  imitated  from  the  raving  of 
Canaanites  becomes  the  glory  of  Israel.  Codes  of 
laws,  gathered  up  from  a  haphazard  praxis  or  de- 
vised as  reforming  nchemes,  become  so  sacred  that 


232  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

tlic  nation  will  battle  for  them  as  for  existence.  In 
short,  we  are  promised  the  exhibition  of  a  course  of 
development,  and  at  decisive  turning-points  the 
theory  of  development  fails.  It  may  seem  at  first 
sight  remarkable  that  there  should  be  so  much  con- 
sensus of  critical  opinion  in  regard  to  these  outstand- 
ing and  testing  points  of  the  history.  But  if  we 
look  more  closely  we  shall  observe  that,  after  all,  tlie 
consensus  is  confined  to  the  underlying  postulate, 
which  of  course  controls  all  the  details.  The  theory 
itself  is  clear  and  thorough  enough,  and  of  course  it 
hangs  together  as  a  whole.  But  it  does  not  hold  the 
parts  together,  because  it  does  not  supply  the 
proper  nexus  that  unites  them  in  an  orderly  histori- 
cal development.  There  must  be  a  bond  of  a  more 
vital  fibre,  a  force  more  deeply  inherent,  which  the 
modern  -theory  has  not  penetrated  to  nor  unfolded, 
to  account  for  a  religious  and  spiritual  movement, 
which,  looking  to  the  broad  field  on  which  it  is  dis- 
played and  the  diversified  circumstances  under 
which  it  took  place,  is  nothing  short  of  majestic. 
The  self-styled  'Miigher"  criticism  is  indeed  not 
high  enough,  or,  we  should  perhaps  more  appropri- 
ately say,  not  deep  enough  for  the  problem  be- 
fore it. 

The  strongest  objection,  in  fact,  to  the  theory  ^^as 
a  whole  "  is,  that  it  hardly  at  all  touches  the  religion 
round  which  the  whole  history  properly  turns. 
Superstition  there  has  always  been  among  all  peoples, 
and  no  doubt  there  was  much  superstition  mixed  up 
with  the  popular  religion  of  ancient  Israel.  But  re- 
ligion  is    not    necessarily   sui)erstition,   nor  does  it 


Conclusion.  233 

necessarily  flow  from  it  in  natural  development. 
Unquestionably  there  was  among  the  best  souls  of 
the  nation  of  Israel  in  early  times — and  these  may 
have  been  a  larger  proportion  of  the  people  than  we 
generally  suppose,  as  the  answer  to  Elijah  (1  Kings 
xix.  18)  in  his  day  indicated — a  strong  current  of 
true  religious  life,  to  the  fountains  of  which  we  must 
reach,  it  we  would  understand  this  wonderful  his- 
tory. To  this  aspect  of  the  subject,  however,  the 
modern  theory  pays  far  too  little  regard.  Take,  for 
example,  the  treatment  of  the  book  of  Psalms  now  in 
vogue  in  the  higher  circles  of  criticism.  One  would 
have  thought  that  if  anywhere  the  inquirer  into  the 
history  of  religious  thought  and  life  would  find  valu- 
able ''  sources,"  it  would  be  in  this  collection  of  the 
sacred  and  national  songs  of  Israel.  But  Wellhau- 
sen,  for  example,  who  boasts  that  he  could  under- 
stand the  history  of  Israel  without  the  book  of  the 
Law,  can  also  dispense  with  the  book  of  the  Psalms. 
In  the  ''index  of  passages  discussed  "  appended  to 
his  '  History  of  Israel,'  there  is  only  one  reference  to 
one  psalm  (Ps.  Ixxiii.),  which  too,  of  course,  is 
placed  very  late  in  date.  I  think  it  a  positive  ob- 
jection to  the  theory,  not  so  much  that  it  brings 
down  the  bulk  of  the  psalms  to  post-exilian  times, 
but  that  it  is  able  to  dispense  with  them  as  ma- 
terials for  a  history  of  the  older  religion  of  Israel, 
and  to  relegate  them  to  a  time  at  which,  according 
to  its  own  showing,  the  religion  had  taken  a  more 
mechanical  and  formal  phase.  It  is  now  the  fashion 
to  speak  of  the  Psalter  as  the  psalm-book  of  the  sec- 
ond Temple,  in  the  sense,  not  that  it  is  a  collection 


234  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

of  older  religious  compositions  brought  together  by 
the  piety  of  a  later  generation,  but  that  they  were 
composed  purposely  for  use  in  i)ublic  worship.  Thus, 
by  one  stroke,  the  tongue  of  ancient  Israel  is  struck 
dumb,  as  the  pen  is  dashed  from  its  hand,  these  art- 
less lyrics  are  deprived  of  their  spontaneousness,  and 
a  great  gulf  is  fixed  between  the  few  which  a  nig- 
gardly criticism  admits  to  be  of  early  date,  and  the 
full  volume  of  devotional  song  which  in  many  tones  was 
called  forth  by  the  shifting  situations  of  olden  times. 
Of  course  the  hypothesis  of  a  low  religious  stage  in 
pre-exilic  times  demands  this,  but  it  is  an  additional 
difficulty  which  the  theory  raises  in  the  way  of  its 
own  acceptance;  for  even  if  the  psalms  are  late,  the 
influence  that  started  and  produced  them  must  lie 
early  and  must  lie  deeper  than  in  legal  ordinances 
and  formal  ceremonies.  So  far  as  concerns  their 
higher  tone^  which  is  supposed  to  mark  a  late  date, 
it  is  not  higher  than  what  we  meet  with  in  the  very 
earliest  writing  prophets.  In  the  glowing  periods 
of  these  prophets  we  have  unmistakable  evidence  of 
the  deep  religiousness  that  suffused  the  minds  of 
those  who  from  the  first  guided  the  religious  life  of 
the  nation.  But  all  that  side  of  the  early  religious 
history — and  how  much  is  that  all! — might  almost  as 
well  never  have  existed,  for  all  that  the  modern  his- 
torians make  of  it.  The  deep  spirituality  of  Ilosea, 
who  stands,  like  the  Saviour  of  mankind,  weeping 
over  Jerusalem,  full  of  the  very  love  of  God;  the 
strong  ethical  tone  of  Amos  and  his  enthusiasm  for 
God;  the  lofty  aspirations  of  Isaiah  for  righteous- 
ness, and   his  rapt  visions  of  future  glory, — these 


Conclusion,  235 

surely  arc  not  isolated  phenomena  in  the  centuries 
that  rolled  over  Israel  when  all  that  is  best  in  the 
history  was  being  achieved,  but  indicate  a  strong 
under-current  of  perennial  religious  life.  Yet  for  all 
these,  even  taken  in  their  isolation,  how  little  sjmi- 
pathy  do  our  modern  critical  historians  exhibit! 
Whereas  Ewald,  in  a  past  generation,  came  to  the 
Old  Testament  books  with  a  sympathetic  spirit,  and 
Delitzsch  in  our  own  generation,  with  a  piety  par- 
donable in  the  circumstances,  heard  in  these  pro- 
phetic voices  the  echo,  thrown  backward  over  the 
centuries,  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  we  get  nowadays 
some  dry  analysis  of  the  '^idea"  and  the  '^  concep- 
tion "  of  each  prophet,  and  a  grudging  doling  out  of 
the  attributes  of  might  and  holiness  in  the  character 
of  God,  and  reluctant  admissions  of  nascent  monothe- 
ism here  and  there,  but  we  catch  no  fire  from  the 
prophetic  words  as  they  are  weighed  and  measured 
out  in  the  scales  of  the  critics.^  These  men,  whose 
words  are  the  fittest  found  even  yet  to  express  all 
that  we  can  think  loftiest  of  God,  are  represented  as 
groping  after  the  idea  of  one  God,  contending  for 
the  honour  of  a  deity  that  is  little  better  than  a 
Chemosh  or  a  Moloch;  and  when  they  cease  to 
write  and  become  men  of  action,  they  are  set  before 
us  as  moved  by  paltry  motives  of  expediency,  up- 
holding the  dignity  of  their  order  against  the  priest- 

1  Wellhausen  must  needs  even  belittle  the  impression  of  sublimity 
profiuoed  by  the  account  of  the  Creation  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis. 
He  is  generous  enough  to  admit  that  "  the  beginning  especially  is  in- 
comparable."  But  "  chaos  being  given,  all  the  rest  is  spun  out  of  it: 
all  that  follows  is  reflection,  systematic  construction ;  we  can  easily 
follow  the  calculation  from  point  to  point "  (Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  298).  He 
could  have  done  it  himself  in  short.  Instead  of  the  artless  gestures 
of  a  child  we  have  the  stiff  movements  of  a  Dutch  doll.  But  ia  it  the 
Hebrew  writer  or  the  modern  critic  that  is  wooden-headed? 


236  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

hood,  or  conspiring  with  tliom  to  bring  about  a 
masterly  movement  for  the  concentration  of  religious 
worship  directly  under  their  own  supervision. 
Feasts,  sacrifices,  incomes  of  the  clergy,  in  such 
things,  and  in  the  centralisation  of  the  worship  at 
Jerusalem,  the  history  of  religion  is  made  to  consist;^ 
but  the  heart  of  the  religion  is  hardly  looked  at,  or 
rudely  torn  out  of  it. 

So  that,  when  all  is  said  and  done,  the  impression 
on  the  mind  of  an  unprejudiced  reader  certainly  is 
that  there  is  more  in  the  religion  of  Israel  than  the 
modern  historians  are  able  to  see  or  willing  to  ac- 
knowledge. Let  their  literary  analysis  be  ever  so 
tliorough,  one  who  will  read  the  Old  Testament 
books  as  he  would  read  any  other  ancient  documents, 
must  remain  convinced  that  justice  is  not  done  to 
them  by  a  criticism  which  ignores  their  most  char- 
acteristic element.  The  critics  object  to  the  Biblical 
theory  that  it  relies  so  much  on  the  supernatural: 
the  characteristic  feature  of  their  own  is  the  unna- 
tural. The  Biblical  theory  says  there  was  a  course 
of  history  quite  unprecedented,  or  certainly  most 
extraordinary;  the  modern  theory  says  that  the 
history  was  nothing  remarkable,  but  there  was 
quite  an  unprecedented  mode  of  imagining  and 
writing  it.  There  have  to  be  postulated  miracles 
of  a  literary  and  psycliological  kind,  which  contra- 
dict sound  reason  and  experience  as  much  as  any 
of  the  physical  miracles  of  the  Old  Testament 
transcend  them. 

Even  in  what  is  its  strong  point,  literary  analysis, 

1  See  Wellhausen,  pp.  13,  27. 


Conclusion.  23 1 

I  do  not  know  that  the  modern  theory  is  very  for- 
midable if  the  underlying  historical  postulates  are 
not  granted.  Let  us  suppose  for  a  moment  that  it 
is  possible  on  purely  literary  grounds  to  separate 
different  portions  of  the  Pentateuch  books,  and 
pronounce  them  to  be  from  different  hands.  It  is 
still  confessed  ^  that  the  relative  positions  and  dates 
of  these  portions  cannot  be  determined  from  them- 
selves. Only  when  the  theory  of  the  historical  de- 
velopment is  introduced  do  the  original  sources  or 
diverse  components  fall  into  the  places  assigned  to 
them  in  the  scheme.  But  if  the  theory  of  the  devel- 
opment can  be  shown  to  be  so  far  untenable  thst 
what  is  pronounced  by  it  late  may  well  have  been  much 
earlier,  then  the  arrangement  and  dating  of  the 
parts  are  open  to  revision.  As  to  the  critical  pro= 
cess  of  separating  the  sources  as  literary  products, 
I  regard  it  as  a  matter  of  secondary  importance,  so 
long  as  we  are  able,  by  the  help  of  the  prophetic 
writers,  to  determine  in  a  general  way  that  the 
books,  in  their  combined  form  are  trustworthy  docu- 
ments, and  that  the  views  they  set  forth  are  not  un- 
historical.  It  may  be  open  to  question,  however, 
whether  the  separation  has  not  been  carried  too  far, 
and  in  a  manner  somewhat  arbitrary  and  artificial. 
When  we  find  a  real  character  in  flesh  and  blood  in 
Hebrew  history,  we  find  him  capable  of  entertaining 
more  than  one  idea  in  his  mind,  and  even  sustaining 
apparently  incompatible  relations,  as  Samuel,  who 
offered  sacrifice,  and  yet  seems  to  scout  it  as  useless. 
I  think  it  is  most  probable  that  the  men  who  wrote 

1  WeUliausen,  History,  p.  10. 


238  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

the  component  parts  of  these  books  were  representa- 
tive and  public  men,  not  mere  '^priests"  here  or 
'^  prophetic  men"  there.  I  do  not  know,  indeed, 
that  the  main  ^'sources"  of  the  Hexateuch  differ 
more  in  style  or  substance  among  themselves  than 
do  the  synoptic  Gospels.  And  most  certainly  there 
is  an  over-driving  of  critical  processes  in  the  histori- 
cal books  when  narratives  are  cut  up  into  contradic- 
tory parts,  because  some  character  in  the  story  is 
represented  as  actuated  by  different  motives  at  dif- 
ferent times,  or  playing  parts  which  either  are  or 
seem  to  be  inconsistent. 

But  let  it  be  granted  that  the  ^'  sources"  of  the 
Pentateuch  books  have  been  pretty  accurately  deter- 
mined, or  let  the  very  highest  value  be  given  to  the 
results  of  critical  analysis,  there  is  one  remark  that 
occurs  in  regard  to  them.  We  have  seen  good  rea- 
son for  believing  that  the  art  of  literary  composition 
does  not  begin  about  the  time  of  the  first  writing 
prophets,  but  was  then  well  advanced.  It  seems  to 
me  that  the  existence  of  these  ''sources"  of  the 
critics  proves  the  same  thing  and  proves  more. 
There  they  are,  combined,  at  a  very  early  period  of 
literary  composition — J  and  E  at  least — so  inextri- 
cably that  they  cannot  be  separated,  to  say  nothing 
of  the  redaction,  whether  by  the  Deuteronomist  or 
another.  Now  we  are  continually  being  told  that  in 
ancient  times  there  was  no  literary  copyright,  and 
tliat  the  possessor  of  a  book  considered  himself  en- 
titled to  treat  it  as  his  own,  ])y  adding  to  it  or  in- 
corporating his  own  materials  with  it;  and  that  in 
this  way  we  might  get  such  combinations  as  these 


Conclusion.  239 

books  exhibit.  It  is  said  also  that  the  earliest  writ- 
ings must  have  been  of  a  private  or  personal  char- 
acter— i.e.,  not  stamped  with  such  authority  as 
canonical  writings  came  to  possess.  Now,  when  we 
look  at  the  component  parts  of  the  Old  Testament 
writings,  as  the  analysis  of  criticism  exhibits  them, 
there  is  nothing  that  strikes  us  more  forcibly  than 
the  care  that  was  evidently  bestowed  in  preserving 
even  nnnute  parts  of  separate  documents.  It  may 
be,  as  is  generally  supposed,  that  when,  e.g.,  J  and 
E  had  a  passage  in  common,  the  redactor  who 
combined  them  adopted  the  one  and  excluded  the 
other;  but  the  obstinate  way  in  which  minute  frag- 
ments, even  single  words,  of  the  one  intrude  into 
the  other,  where  presumal^ly  there  was  some  slight 
divergence  or  additional  detail,  and  this  in  the  case 
of  all  the  sources  or  redactions,  leads  us  to  the  con- 
clusion that  even  at  that  early  time  when  these 
sources  were  combined,  there  was  a  regard  for  liter- 
ary copyright.^  Whether  this  is  consistent  with 
the  idea  that  these  sources  were  private  documents 
is  nut  very  certain.  One  would  think  that  the  writ- 
ing of  the  history  of  the  nation  on  the  broad  scheme 
(comparatively)  on  which  these  writers  proceed,  was 
not  left  to  private  and  irresponsible  men — at  least 
was  not  undertaken  by  any  or  every  one  who  cared 
to  do  it.  We  should  most  naturally  look  for  the 
authors  of  such  writings,  when  great  writers  were 
rare,    among    outstanding    and    responsible    men. 

1  Horton,  In  speaking  of  one  so  late  as  the  author  of  the  books  of 
Chronicles,  says,  when  he  had  different  authorities  before  him,  he 
"  preferred  leaving:  them  unharnmnised  to  tampering  in  any  way  with 
the  facts.  "—Inspiration  and  the  Bible,  third  edition,  p.  160. 


240  Early  Religion  of  M'ael. 

This  whole  aspect  of  the  matter  would  almost  lead 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  germ  of  a  canon  existed 
much  earlier  than  is  generally  asserted.  Especially 
if,  for  J  and  E  and  the  like,  we  substitute  the 
names  of  prophets  or  theocratic  men,  who  guided 
the  nation's  religious  life  and  interpreted  its  history, 
it  will  not  be  so  evident  that  our  earlier  Scriptures 
were  left  to  the  haphazard  emendation  of  every 
private  hand  into  which  they  came. 

But  now,  if  the  knowledge  of  God  in  a  pure  form 
is  to  be  placed  so  far  back  in  history,  and  made  to 
start  with  a  simple  revelation  to  Abraham,  what  be- 
comes of  development?  Well,  in  the  first  place,  the 
modern  theory  also  has  to  postulate  a  starting- 
point;  and,  we  have  seen,  its  difficulty  is  marked 
when  it  seeks  to  place  the  absolute  commencement 
of  a  spiritual  religion  at  a  late  period.  But,  in  the 
second  place,  the  Biblical  theory  is  more  conspicu- 
ously a  theory  of  development  than  the  modern  one. 
It  makes  the  advance  of  the  religious  idea  really  an 
unfolding  of  a  germinal  conception,  not  an  advance 
from  one  attribute  to  another,  as  from  might  to  holi- 
ness, but  an  expansion  of  one  fundamental  concep- 
tion into  wider  references  and  application.  And  it 
is  a  development  marked  by  historical  stadia.  From 
the  Being  who  made  Himself  known  to  the  soul  of 
Abraham,  and  from  that  time  onward  was  the  coven- 
ant God  of  one  nation,  faithful  to  His  word,  even 
though  Tlis  people  should  be  unfaithful  on  their  part, 
we  can  trace  an  unbroken  development  to  the  God  of 
all  the  families  of  mankind.  For  if  He  defends  Ilis 
own  people  from  their  enemies,  and  is  at  the  same 


Conclusion.  241 

time  a  merciful  God  to  His  own,  the  idea  follows, 
and  we  see  it  early,  that  His  enemies,  by  submitting 
to  Him  and  casting  in  their  lot  with  His  people,  will 
share  in  His  people's  blessings,  and  thus  the  God  of 
Israel  will  become,  in  fact  as  well  as  of  right,  the 
God  of  all.  Strictly  speaking,  the  Old  Testament 
writers  never  got  beyond  the  idea  of  national  reli- 
gion. Though  they  perceived  that  Jahaveh  ruled 
all  nations,  and  acted  on  strictly  moral  and  just 
principles  towards  all,  they  never  conceived  that 
there  was  no  difference  between  His  relation  to  Israel 
and  His  relation  to  the  nations.  In  point  of  fact 
there  was  a  difference,  as  history  has  proved.  Even 
in  New  Testament  times,  we  see  how  hard  it  was  for 
the  apostle  Peter  to  perceive  that  God  was  ^^  no  re- 
specter of  persons,  but  that  in  every  nation  he  that 
feareth  Him  and  worketh  righteousness  is  accepted 
with  Him"  (Acts  x.  34,  35).  St.  Paul  also  had  to 
fight  hard  for  the  position  that  ^^circumcision  is 
nothing,  and  uncircumcision  is  nothing,  but  the  keep- 
ing of  the  commandments  of  God  "  (1  Cor.  vii.  19), 
and  to  the  last  had  to  contend  for  the  truth  that 
the  God  whom  he  preached  was  not  the  God  of 
the  Jews  only,  but  also  of  the  Gentiles.  The 
highest  that  the  Old  Testament  prophets  attained 
to  was  an  anticipation  of  a  condition  of  things 
under  which,  through  Israel,  blessing  would  come 
to  the  whole  world;  it  was  again  an  expansion 
of  this  when,  in  the  New  Testament,  the  middle 
wall  of  partition  was  broken  down,  and  all  who 
have  the  faith  of  Abraham,  whether  they  be  his 
seed  or  not,  shall  share  in  his  blessinoj.     The  devel- 


242  Eay'ly  Religion  of  Israel. 

opmcnt  here  is  unbroken;  and  though  the  history- 
shows,  as  all  history  does,  action  and  reaction,  yet 
there  is  an  onward  advance  from  beginning  to  end. 

Thus  from  Abraham  on  to  the  close  of  national 
independence  there  was  a  regular  and  steady  devel- 
opment, the  idea  of  Jahaveh  and  the  conception  of 
what  His  religion  implied  undergoing  a  steady  ex- 
pansion in  the  prophetic  teaching,  aided  by  the  po- 
litical events  through  Avhich  the  nation  passed.  The 
revival  of  the  time  of  Ezra  was  a  new  starting-point, 
or,  as  we  may  better  express  it,  the  course  of  devel- 
opment had  come  round  by  a  wide  cycle  to  a  new 
starting-point;  for  all  historical  movement  is  of  this 
kind,  in  cycles  which  come  back  again  upon  them- 
selves and  follow  apparently  the  same  path,  though 
on  a  higher  plane.  What  happened  in  Ezra's  time 
was  this:  An  attempt  was  made,  on  the  basis  of  the 
experience  of  the  past,  to  live  the  national  life  over 
again  under  new  conditions.  What  had  been  already 
achieved  was  gathered  up;  the  national  life,  instead 
of  having  primarily  a  promise  of  a  future,  fed  itself 
on  the  recollections  of  the  past;  it  closed  around  the 
results  of  the  former  prophetic  activity,  and  souglit 
to  conserve  what  had  been  attained,  as  the  starting- 
point  for  a  new  round  of  experience.  There  is  in  the 
plant  a  similar  cycle  of  life:  the  tlower  l)lossoms  and 
then  decays;  but  before  it  lias  fallen,  it  has  devel- 
oped the  seed  which  is  to  l)e  the  life  of  a  coming 
season;  and  though  we  may  think  that  the  plant  lias 
completed  its  period  of  life,  this  is  not  so  if  it  has 
matured  the  seed  which  has  vitality  in  itself  ibr  fu- 
tTire  growth.    The  hard  and  di'ied  seed-pod  is  not  so 


Conclusion.  243 

attractive  an  object  as  the  fair  blossoming  flower, 
l)ut  it  not  only  is  the  result  of  the  past,  but  has  also 
promise  for  the  future.  And  if,  to  preserve  the  fig- 
ure, the  period  of  the  Talmud  exhibits  men  amusing 
themselves  at  play  with  dried  peas,  yet  these  seeds 
were  not  dead,  and  many  even  in  the  Talmudic  pe- 
riod recognised  their  vitality.  And  when,  finally, 
the  fulness  of  the  time  was  come,  the  seeds  which 
had  fallen  on  dry  ground  shot  forth  with  new  and 
more  beautiful  life:  the  truths  reached  by  men  of  old 
time,  which  had  been  treated  as  so  many  dogmas  or 
formulae,  were  seen  to  be  truths  endowed  with  per- 
ennial life.  The  teaching  of  the  prophets,  and  the 
fond  beliefs  of  the  people,  that  Jahaveh  would  ever 
be  Israel's  God,  were  illustrated  in  a  new  and  strik- 
ing manner  in  Him  who  was  raised  up  an  horn  of 
salvation  in  the  house  of  David,  and  the  anticipa- 
tions of  the  time  when  Gentiles  should  come  to  the 
light  of  Israel,  were  fulfilled  when  the  wall  of  parti- 
tion was  broken  down,  and  it  was  shown,  in  the 
light  of  the  Gospel,  that  Abraham  was  father  of  all 
that  believe,  whether  they  be  Jews  or  Gentiles. 

But  M.  Renan  objects:  This  makes  the  religion  of 
Israel  a  thing  that  has  no  beginning — a  thing  as  old 
as  the  world — a  supposition  which,  from  his  point  of 
view,  is  not  for  a  moment  to  be  entertained.  And 
from  him  and  from  others  we  hear  the  reiterated  ap- 
peal to  ^^  primitive  peoples,"  ^' rudimentary  ideas," 
and  so  forth,  with  the  implication  that  the  progress 
of  Israel's  religious  life  must  be  made  to  square  with 
the  progress  found  in  other  nations.  To  all  which 
our  simple  reply  is— In  point  of  fact  it  was  not  the 


244  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

same;  the  modern  theorists  themselves  are  bound  to 
admit  as  much  within  the  spliere  of  which  they  say 
we  have  authentic  information.  And  there  is  the 
other  fact,  patent  in  history,  that  other  primitive 
peoples,  and  even  peoples  of  the  same  Semitic  race, 
never  got  to  the  stage,  or  anything  approaching  the 
stage,  that  the  Hebrews  reached.  In  view  of  these 
plain  facts  in  the  world's  history,  it  is  simply  trifling 
to  insist  upon  making  Israel's  history  square  with 
that  of  all  other  peoples.  The  Oriental  of  the 
present  day  has  a  very  expressive  answer  to  all  such 
arguments.  He  simply  extends  his  hand,  and  says, 
''  See;  are  the  fingers  of  the  hand  all  of  one  length? " 
In  the  matter  of  religion  we  are  not  to  be  guided  by 
the  degree  of  ^^  culture  "  to  which  a  nation  has  at- 
tained, or  justified  in  speaking  of  early  and  late  at 
all.  The  Egyptians  and  Assyi'ians  were  far  in  ad- 
vance of  the  Israelites  in  civilisation  and  outward 
culture,  but  they  are  not  to  be  compared  with  them 
in  the  sphere  of  religion.  Renan  himself  has  pointed 
out  how  the  simple  nomad  is  far  in  advance  of  the 
settled  inhabitant  of  the  city  in  religious  experience. 
The  history  of  the  world  would  seem  in  a  striking 
manner  to  confirm  the  Biblical  statements  that  man 
cannot  by  searching  find  out  God:  that  the  world  by 
wisdom  knew  not  God.  While  the  most  acute  phil- 
osophers and  thinkers  of  Greece  were  reasoning 
about  these  things,  the  simple-minded  Hebrews  had 
reached  a  firm  position  from  which  tlicy  never  re- 
ceded, and  from  which  the  whole  thinking  world,  as 
from  a  starting-point,  has  had  to  advanced     It  is  all 

J  Bredenkamp,  Gesetz  u.  Propheten,  p.  13. 


Conclusion.  245 

very  well  for  us  noiv — when  the  light  shines — to 
formulate  our  arguments  for  the  existence  and  char- 
acter of  God;  for  we  know  what  we  want  to  prove. 
But  the  fact  that  reasoners  by  reason  did  not  suc- 
ceed in  proving  it  till  the  Hebrew  race  had  made  it 
known  to  the  world,  and  the  other  fact  that  they  did 
not  reach  it  by  a  process  of  reasoning  or  reflection, 
or  adding  on  of  one  attribute  to  another — these  facts 
show  that  such  a  knowledge  is  given  with  more  di- 
rect force,  and  in  a  more  complete  form.  What 
seems,  in  fact,  hard  and  laborious  to  us  with  our 
logical  categories  and  subjective  processes,  seems  to 
have  come  instinctively  to  the  Abrahamic  race;  and 
even  Stade  has  admitted  that  if  there  was  not  pre- 
cisely an  instinct  of  monotheism  in  the  Hebrews, 
they,  above  all  others,  showed  a  predisposition  to  it. 
In  this  connection  it  is  interesting  to  recall  an  in- 
cident mentioned  by  F.  W.  Newman,^  from  his  own 
experience  as  a  missionary.  ''While  we  were  at 
Aleppo,"  he  says,  "  I  one  day  got  into  religious  dis- 
course with  a  Mohammedan  carpenter,  which  left  on 
me  a  lasting  impression.  Among  other  matters,  I 
was  peculiarly  desirous  of  disabusing  him  of  the  cur- 
rent notion  of  his  people,  that  our  Gospels  are  spu- 
rious narratives  of  late  date.  I  found  great  diffi- 
culty of  expression;  but  the  man  listened  to  me  with 
great  attention,  and  I  was  encouraged  to  exert  my- 
self. He  waited  patiently  till  I  had  done,  and  then 
spoke  to  the  following  effect:  '  I  tell  you,  sir,  how 
the  case  stands.  God  has  given  to  j-ou  English  a 
great  many  good  gifts.     You  make  fine  ships,  and 

1  Phases  of  Faith,  second  edition,  1853,  p.  32  f. 


246  Early  lielir/ion  of  Israel 

sharp  penknives,  and  good  cloth  and  cottons;  and 
you  have  rich  nobles  and  brave  soldiers;  and  you 
write  and  print  many  learned  books  (dictionaries 
and  grammars):  all  this  is  of  God.  But  there  is 
one  thing  that  God  has  withheld  from  you  and  has 
revealed  to  us;  and  tliat  is,  the  knowledge  of  the 
true  religion,  by  which  one  ma}'  be  saved.'  "  New- 
man adds:  ^^When  he  had  thus  ignored  my  argu- 
ment (which  was  probably  quite  unintelligible  to 
him)  and  delivered  his  simple  protest,  I  was  silent 
and  at  the  same  time  amused.  But  the  more  I 
thought  it  over,  the  more  instruction  I  saw  in  the 
case."  For  my  own  part,  I  have  much  sympathy 
with  the  opinion  expressed  by  the  Moslem  carpen- 
ter. He  is  a  type  of  many  that  are  to  be  found  in 
the  humbler  ranks  of  society  in  the  East  at  the  pres- 
ent day,  who  are  little  qualified  to  follow  a  connected 
argument,  but  to  whom  religious  conceptions  of  a 
high  order  come  as  a  matter  of  course.  Such  men, 
doubtless,  were  those  who  wrote  and  who  read  many 
of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament;  and  hence  the 
books  themselves,  though  subjected  to  the  most  har- 
assing criticism,  and  characterised  as  ^'spurious  nar- 
ratives of  late  date,"  smile  at  all  such  criticism,  and 
give  forth  with  confidence  their  testimony  to  a  faith, 
which  is  independent  of  time,  and  inditierent  to 
modes  of  literary  composition. 

Our  investigations  have  been  confined  to  the  liis- 
tory  of  Israel  as  a  nation,  and  the  conclusion  I  have 
come  to  is  that  the  history,  as  told  by  the  Bible  his- 
torians, is  credible  in  all  the  essential  points  at 
which  we  have  the  means  of  testing  it.     The  Bibli- 


Conclusion.  247 

cal  view  carries  back  the  national  life  and  the  na- 
tional religion  to  Abraham,  and  so  far  as  we  are  able 
to  check  the  accounts,  we  have  found  that  without 
this  assumption  the  history  cannot  be  explained. 
In  other  words,  from  the  12th  chapter  of  Genesis 
onwards,  we  conclude  that  we  have  a  credible  and 
trustworthy  account  of  the  leading  events  and  crises 
of  the  history  of  Israel.  As  to  the  antecedent  eleven 
chapters  of  Genesis,  the  matters  therein  treated  do 
not  fall  properly  within  the  scope  of  our  present  in- 
quiry. They  do  not  constitute  part  of  the  history  of 
Israel,  strictly  speaking,  though  in  the  Biblical  writ- 
ings they  are  made  to  lead  up  to  it  and  give  a  basis 
for  it.  These  accounts  of  primitive  and  primeval 
times,  if  we  place  them,  simply  as  ancient  docu- 
ments, side  by  side  with  the  early  traditions  and 
cosmogonies  of  other  nations,  are,  as  has  been  uni- 
versally admitted,  characterised  by  a  sobriety,  pur- 
ity, and  loftiness  of  conception  which  render  them 
altogether  unique.  If  we  should  set  them  down  as 
merely  the  attempts  on  the  part  of  the  Hebrew  writ- 
ers to  give  all  account  of  origins  of  which  no  histor- 
ical record  was  in  their  hands,  merely  the  consoli- 
dated form  of  legends  and  myths  handed  on  from 
prehistoric  times,  we  cannot  but  recognise  the  sin- 
gular line  that  myth-making  took  in  this  particular 
case,  as  distinguished  from  the  cases  of  polytheistic 
Semitic  and  non-Semitic  races.  Such  myths,  if  they 
are  to  be  so  described,  are  not  born  in  a  day;  even 
if  the  writer  of  the  earliest  of  them  is  set  down  as 
late  as  the  eighth  or  ninth  century  before  Christ,  the 
folk-lore,  if  you  will,  of  his  people  was  of  quite  a 


•^48  Early  Religion  of  Israel 

aniquG  character  before  it  could  furnish  such  mate- 
rials; and  the  writer  of  them  must  already  have 
formulated  to  himself,  to  say  the  least,  a  very 
definite  philosophy  of  history,  and  had  a  much 
broader  conception  of  the  world  and  of  its  relation 
to  God,  than  we  should  expect  from  one  in  the 
primitive  stage  of  religion.  As  compared  with  the 
earliest  formulated  accounts  of  creation  and  primeval 
times  contained  in  Assyrian  literature,  they  are  per- 
vaded by  an  entirely  different  spirit,  emancipated 
from  bonds  of  polytheistic  notions,  and  moving  alto- 
gether on  a  higher  plane.  If  we  find,  as  have  been 
found,  correspondences  of  a  remarkable  kind  in  the 
Hebrew  and  other  early  accounts  of  the  creation, 
and  so  forth,  we  must  not,  as  has  too  often  been  the 
practice,  jump  to  the  conclusion  that  everything 
which  Hebrew  literature  and  tradition  have  in  com- 
mon with  those  of  other  nations  must  be  borrowed 
by  the  Hebrews.  Why  should  the  Hebrews  borrow 
from  every  side,  and  yet  retain  something  so  clearly 
distinguishing  them  from  each  and  all  of  the  others? 
Why  should  we  not  admit  a  common  primeval  tradi- 
tion, when  it  is  thus  attested  by  independent  wit- 
nesses? Nay,  seeing  that  the  Hebrew  tradition,  at 
the  very  earliest  point  at  which  we  can  seize  it,  is 
purer  and  loftier  than  any  other,  why  should  it  be 
at  all  incredible  that  in  that  race,  from  pre-Abra- 
hamic  times  and  in  the  lands  from  which  the  faith  of 
Abraham  was  disseminated,  there  were  found  purer 
conceptions  of  God  and  deeper  intuitions  into  His 
character  and  operations  than  we  find  elsewhere — 
glimmerings  of  a  purer  faith  which  had  elsewhere 


Conclusion.  249 

become  obscured  by  polytheistic  notions  and  prac- 
tices? Do  not  the  results  of  the  study  of  compara- 
tive religion  tend  to  show  that  even  polytheism  is  an 
aberration  from  a  simpler  conception,  and  that  the 
lowest  forms  of  nature-religion  point  to  a  belief  in  a 
Being  whose  character  always  transcends  the  forms 
in  which  the  untutored  mind  tries  to  represent  Him, 
and  is  not  summed  up  in  all  their  attempts  to  give 
it  expression?  That  being  so,  why  should  it  be  a 
thing  incredible  that  in  one  quarter,  a  quarter  which 
in  the  clear  light  of  history  is  found  to  stand  sharply 
defined  from  its  surroundings,  the  souls  of  the  best 
should  have  kept  themselves  above  these  degrada- 
tions, and  nursed  within  themselves  the  higher, 
purer,  more  primary  conception;  and  that  this 
should  have  taken  shape  in  the  faith  of  Abraham,  or, 
if  we  state  it  otherwise,  formed  the  basis  on  which 
the  purer  faith  of  Abraham  was  reared?  This  will 
not  seem  incredible  to  any  who  believe  that  there  is 
but  one  God,  and  that  He  has  been  the  same  from 
the  beginning.  It  is  only  a  statement  in  another 
form  of  St.  Paul's  words,  that  God  has  never  left 
Himself  without  witness;  and  it  is  quite  in  keeping, 
I  believe,  with  the  best  results  of  the  comparative 
study  of  religions. 

In  the  foregoing  chapters,  I  have  carefully  ab- 
stained from  making  any  appeal  to  the  authority  of 
New  Testament  Scriptures.  The  first  and  funda- 
mental question  is,  not  whether  the  modern  theory 
agrees  with  our  Christian  religion  and  our  Confes- 
sion, but  whether  it  agrees  with  sound  sense  and 
sober  reason.     If  the  theory  is  to  be  held  as  proved 


250  Early  Religion  of  Israel. 

on  these  solid  grounds,  our  views  must  be  adjusted 
in  regard  to  it.  I  cannot  help  adding,  however,  that 
if  the  postulates  and  methods  of  this  kind  of  criti- 
cism are  to  be  admitted,  a  good  many  other  tilings 
besides  our  views  of  Old  Testament  history  will  re- 
(piire  to  be  readjusted.  The  question  may  be  put  to 
a  good  many  who  seem  disposed  to  accept  the 
modern  critical  treatment  of  the  Old  Testament, 
whether  they  are  prepared  to  allow  the  same  pro- 
cesses to  be  applied  to  the  New.  I  would  seriously 
ask  those  Christians  who  regard  Stade's  *  Geschichte' 
as  a  successful  exhibition  of  the  religious  history  of 
Israel,  to  ponder  the  application  of  the  same  princi- 
X>les  of  criticism  to  the  life  of  Jesus  Christ  in  the  sec- 
ond volume  of  that  work.  So  far  as  I  can  see,  the 
arguments  used  in  the  one  field  may  be  employed 
equally  well  in  the  other,  and  the  Gospel  history  be 
critically  reconstructed  out  of  the  tendencies  and 
views  of  the  second  century,  just  as  the  account  of 
the  pre-prophetic  religion  given  by  the  Hebrew 
writers  is  made  the  result  of  the  projection  back- 
ward of  later  ideas. 

Just  because  the  issues  in  this  controversy  are  so 
far-reaching,  is  it  necessary  to  meet  the  critical  vie^^ 
on  its  own  ground,  and  to  examine  the  foundation 
on  which  it  rests.  Questions  are  involved  that  lie 
much  deeper  than  those  of  the  verbal  inspiration  or 
the  so-called  ^^  inerrancy"  of  Scripture.  It  seems 
to  me  vain  to  talk  of  the  inspiration  and  authority 
of  books  till  we  are  sure  that  they  arc  credible  and 
honest  compositions,  giving  us  a  firm  historical 
basis  on  which  to  rest.     My  whole  argument  has 


Conclusion.  251 

been  to  show  that,  examined  by  the  light  which  they 
themselves  furnish,  these  books  are  trustworthy 
documents;  that  the  compositions  which  are  un- 
doubted and  accepted  give  their  testimony  to  those 
that  are  questioned  or  rejected;  that  the  books  as 
they  lie  before  us,  so  far  as  they  can  be  tested  by 
the  only  tests  in  our  possession,  and  making  all 
allowance  for  the  ordinary  conditions  of  human 
composition  and  transmission  of  books,  give  us  a 
fair  and  credible  account  of  what  took  place  in  the 
history  and  religious  development  of  Israel.  If  that 
point  is  allowed  to  be  in  a  fair  way  established,  I 
leave  the  argument  for  inspiration  and  authority  to 
take  care  of  itself.  The  picture  which  the  books 
present,  if  it  is  admitted  to  be  in  any  sense  an 
adequate  representation  of  fact,  will  probably  be 
sufficient  to  convince  ordinary  Christian  people  that 
in  ancient  Israel  there  was  a  divine  control  of  events, 
a  divine  guidance  of  the  best  spirits  of  the  nation, 
a  divine  plan  in  the  unfolding  of  the  history,  which 
we  may  sum  up  by  saying  there  was  a  divinely 
guided  development,  or,  as  it  has  been  expressed,' 
that  the  history  itself  is  inspired.  How  far  such  a 
description,  in  any  specific  sense,  may  be  given  of 
the  history  as  it  is  represented  by  the  theory  I  have 
been  combating,  I  leave  its  advocates  to  determine. 
I  should  think,  however,  that  that  is  the  very  mini- 
mum of  any  theory  of  inspiration  worthy  of  the 
name.  I  should  think,  moreover,  that  those  who  do 
regard  the  history  of  Israel  as  divinely  guided  and 
inspired  in  a  sense  altogether  ditferent  from  other 

1  Horton,  Inspiration  and  the  Bible,  p.  171. 


252  Early  Religion  of  Israel 

ancient  history,  instead  of  underrating  as  a  vague 
or  negative  result  such  a  conclusion  as  it  has  been 
my  endeavour  to  establish  on  the  bare  ground  of 
historical  criticism,  ought  to  rejoice  if,  with  even  a 
degree  of  probability,  it  can  be  made  out.  M. 
Renan  would  indeed  have  us  believe  that  the  idea 
which  animated  ancient  Israel,  and  was  carried 
over  into  Christianity,  is  played  out,  having  received 
its  death-blow  at  the  French  Revolution,  when  cer- 
tain thinkers  came  to  the  conclusion  that  there  was 
no  Providence  controlling  the  events  of  man's  world, 
no  God  who  is  to  be  the  judge  of  man's  actions.^ 
Instead  of  hailing  with  pleasure  such  an  emancipa- 
tion of  the  human  spirit,  we  ought  gladly  to  wel- 
come any  help  that  comes  to  the  aid  of  faith  in  such 
a  God  as  the  patriarchs  and  prophets  are  repre- 
sented as  making  known — a  God  whose  revelation 
of  Himself  has  been  advancing  with  brighter  radi- 
ance, till  it  culminated  in  the  manifestation  of  His 
Son  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  the  ^  night  to  lighten  the 
Gentiles,  and  the  glory  of  His  people  Israel.  "  Such 
a  faith  as  Old  Testament  prophets  possessed  has 
been  the  blessing  and  the  guide  of  the  best  of  man- 
kind in  their  achievement  of  the  best  up  till  this 
hour;  such  a  faith  is  more  than  ever  needed  just  at 
the  present  moment,  to  save  the  human  race  from 
losing  respect  for  itself,  and  to  rekindle  hope  and 
aspiration  for  the  future.  The  choice  has  to  be 
made,  in  the  last  resort,  between  such  a  faith  and 
''the  divine  pride  of  man  in  himself,"  which,    we 

'  Souvenirs  d'Enfance  et  de  Jeunesse,  p.  3b7;  flistolr©  du  Peuple 
d'Israel,  tome  1.  pp.  27,  40,  41. 


Conclusion.  253 

are  told,  is  to  be  ^Hlie  radical  foundation  of  the 
new  religion.  "  ^  And  even  the  volatile  Frenchman 
himself  has  said:  '^  It  is  not  impossible  that,  wearied 
with  the  repeated  bankruptcies  of  liberalism,  the 
world  may  yet  again  become  Jewish  and  Christian."  ^ 

1  Walt  Whitman,  Democratic  vistas  (Camelot  Series),  p.  65. 

2  Histoire  du  Peuple  tl'Iaraeli  tome  i.  p.  vii. 


NOTES. 


Note  I.  vol.  i.  p.  7.— English  readers  naturally  expect  that 
scholars  should  be  able,  by  mere  linguistic  features,  to  arrange 
the  Old  Testament  books  in  chronological  order;  and  find  it 
difficult  to  understand  how,  in  the  matters  of  language  and 
style,  there  should  be  so  little  appreciable  distinction  between 
books  dating  centuries  apart.  That  the  fact  is  so,  is  suffici- 
ently proved  by  the  various  dates  assigned  by  different  critical 
scholars  to  the  same  compositions.  What  used  to  be  regarded 
as  the  earliest  of  the  (large)  components  of  the  Pentateuch, 
is  now  by  the  prevailing  school  made  the  latest,  and  the 
linguistic  features  have  not  been  considered  a  bar  to  either 
view  (see  p.  46).  The  uniformity  of  the  language  of  the  Old 
Testament  is  partly  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  ancient 
mode  of  writing  only  the  consonants  did  not  provide  for  the 
preservation  of  those  variations  in  vowel-sounds  which  usually 
mark  the  history  of  languages ;  and  when,  at  a  late  period,  a 
system  of  vowel-points  was  adopted,  a  uniformity  in  this  re- 
spect would  be  the  result.  The  English  reader  must  not,  how- 
ever, conclude  that  there  is  no  difference  observable  between 
early  and  late  productions.  The  books  of  Daniel,  Ezra,  and 
Nehemiah  betray  their  later  date  by  the  presence  of  the  so- 
called  Chaldee  portions ;  and  the  book  of  Ecclesiastes,  as  Delitzsch 
has  said,  must  be  placed  late,  else  there  is  no  history  of  the  He- 
brew language  at  all.  The  books  of  Chronicles  indicate  their 
lateness  even  by  the  matter.  Still,  in  the  great  mass  of  the  He- 
brew literature  there  are  no  sure  linguistic  landmarks  denoting 


256  Notes. 

definite  literary  periods.  It  must  be  admitted  that  in  this,  as  in 
other  respects,  the  East  is  more  stationary  than  the  "West;  and 
it  is  therefore  somewhat  misleading  to  compare  long  periods  of 
our  own  history  with  the  same  number  of  years  in  Hebrew  his- 
tory (as  is  done,  e.f/.,  by  Horton,  in  'Inspiration  and  the  Bible,' 
third  edition,  p.  143).  A  modern  Arabic  author  will  write  in 
the  style  of  an  ancient  classic,  without  subjecting  himself  to  the 
charge  of  pedantry;  and  the  uniformity  of  the  style  of  Assyrian 
documents  is  remarkable.  When  once  a  certain  style  for  a  cer- 
tain subject  is  fixed,  it  tends  to  stereotype  itself;  and  one  author 
may  be  master  of  more  than  one  style.  At  all  events,  the  deter- 
mination of  separate  authorship  does  not,  as  a  rule,  go  far  to 
the  determination  of  date.     Cf.  below.  Note  XXVI.  • 

Note  II.  vol.  i.  p.  23. — M.  Renan's  estimate  of  the  historical  sci- 
ences, to  which  his  life  has  been  devoted,  is  not  very  high :  "Little 
conjectural  sciences,  which  are  unmade  as  fast  as  they  are  made, 
and  which  will  be  neglected  a  hundred  years  hence."  With  his 
sneer  at  the  "ugly  little  Jew"  (St.  Paul)  who  was  unable  to  un- 
derstand the  goddess  whom  Renan  on  the  Acropolis  addressed, 
maybe  contrasted  the  declaration  of  Heine  in  his  '  Confessions': 
"  Formerly  I  had  no  special  admiration  for  Moses,  probably  be- 
cause the  spirit  of  Hellenism  was  dominant  within  me,  and  I 
could  not  pardon  in  the  lawgiver  of  the  Jews  his  intolerance  of 
all  types  and  plastic  representations.  ...  I  see  now  that  the 
Greeks  were  only  handsome  youths,  while  the  Jews  were  always 
men,  powerful,  indomitable  men."  See  'Wit,  Wisdom,  and 
Pathos  from  the  Prose  of  Heinrich  Heine,' by  Snodgrass,  second 
edition,  p.  256  f. 

Note  III.  vol.  i.  p.  25.— rTiele  in  his  *  Kompendium  der  Reli- 
gionsgeschichte,'  §  3,  thus  lays  down  the  fundamental  lines  of  the 
whole  subject:  It  is  probable  for  various  reasons  ih'Jii primitive 
religion,  which  has  left  but  few  traces,  was  followed  by  a  pre- 
vailing period  of  animism,  which  is  still  found  in  the  so-called 
nature-religiojis  {ov,  as  he  prefers  to  call  them,  "  polydemonis- 
tic-magical  tribal  religions"),  and  which,  at  a  still  early  period 
among  civilised  peoples,  was  developed  \viio  polytheistic  nation- 


Notes.  257 

al  religions,  resting  on  traditional  teaching.  At  a  later  time 
there  arose  out  of  polytheism,  here  and  there,  nomistic  religions, 
or  religious  communities  based  on  a  law  or  sacred  writing.  In 
these  polytheism  was  more  or  less  overcome  by  pantheism  or 
monotheism,  in  the  last  of  which  are  found  the  roots  of  the 
\vorld-religions.  All  this,  as  is  pointed  out  by  Tide's  French 
translator  (Maurice  Yernes,  L'histoire  des  Religions,  p.  42),  is 
very  much  a  repetition  of  Auguste  Comte's  famous  trilogy,  fet- 
ishism, polytheism,  monotheism;  with  this  difference,  thatTiele 
and  his  followers  regard  monotheism  as  a  permanent  religion, 
while  Comte  and  his  school  regard  it  as  destined  to  give  place  to 
positive  philosophy.  It  is  plain,  moreover,  that,  starting  with 
a  determination  of  what  is  to  be  found,  the  inquirer  will  be 
strongly  tempted  to  find  it,  at  the  expense,  it  may  be,  of  sober 
interpretation  of  facts. 

Note  IV.  vol.  i.  pp.  30,  47. — Writers  of  the  critical  school  are  in 
the  habit  of  attacking  what  they  call  the  "traditional  theory." 
With  this,  however,  we  need  not  concern  ourselves,  except  in  so 
far  as  it  is  found  in  the  Biblical  writers.  The  0.  T.  writers  have 
a  theory,  and  it  is  enough  that  we  examine  it,  especially  as  the 
advanced  critics  tell  us  plainly  that  it  is  erroneous.  (See  Kue- 
nen,  National  Religions,  p.  69  f.)  Whether  Robertson  Smith 
gives  an  exact  statement  of  the  traditional  theory  (0.  T.  in  Jew- 
ish Church,  p.  208  ff.)  I  am  not  prepared  to  say.  I  agree  with 
him,  however,  that  the  position  assigned  to  the  prophets,  in  the 
theory  as  he  sketches  it,  is  not  consistent  with  the  declarations 
of  the  prophets  themselves  (p.  216).  My  whole  contention  is, 
that  the  Biblical  writers  do  not  bind  us  to  any  theory  or  view  of 
the  mode  of  composition  of  books,  whatever  may  have  been 
" traditionally "  inferred  or  taken  for  granted  in  the  matter; 
but  as  to  the  sequence  of  events,  and  the  religious  significance 
of  events,  their  language  is  plain  and  emphatic.  It  is  with  that 
language,  and  the  view  it  expresses,  not  with  traditional  inter- 
pretations of  it,  that  we  have  to  deal. 

Note  V.  vol.  i.  p.  37. — Yatke,  from  whom  Wellhausen  "grate- 
fully acknowledges  himself  to  have  learned  best  and  most "  (Hist. 


258  Notes. 

of  Israel,  p.  13),  says  lliat  Moses  must  he  measured  by  his  time, 
ami  that  it  is  impossible  that  an  individual  should  rise  sudden- 
ly from  a  lower  to  a  hi<!:her  stage  and  raise  a  whole  people  with 
him;  so,  though  an  individual  may  out  of  weakness  fall  back  to 
a  lower  level  (as  to  idol  and  image  worship),  yet  this  is  impossi- 
ble in  the  case  of  a  whole  people,  if  the  consciousness  of  the 
unity  of  God  was  actually  alive.  As  to  the  age  of  Moses,  ac- 
cording to  whose  standard  the  lawgiver  is  to  be  measured, 
Vatke  denied  to  it  even  the  knowledge  of  writing  (Bibl.  TheoL, 
179-183).  Ewald,  on  the  other  hand,  speaking  of  the  time  of 
Moses,  says:  "A  new  power  was  in  that  distant  age  set  in  mo- 
tion in  the  world,  whose  pulsations  vibrated  through  the  whole 
of  antiquity,"  &c.  (Hist,  of  Israel,  Eug.  transl.,  vol.  ii.  p.  169); 
and  F.  C.  Baur  says  that  Mosaism  must  ever  be  regarded  as  a 
great  religious  reform,  a  renewing  and  restoration  of  a  purer 
religion,  periodically  obscured  and  threatened  with  a  still  deeper 
obscuration  (in  Studien  und  Kritiken  for  1832). 

Kote  VI.  vol.  i.  p.  47.— The  classical  passage  in  the  Talmud  (Ba- 
ba  Bathra,  14  b.)  contains  really  all  that  the  rabbins  had  of  tradi- 
tion on  the  subject  of  the  authorship  of  the  Old  Testament  books ; 
and  it  is  so  obscurely  expressed  that  it  is  evident  the  tradition, 
whatever  it  was,  was  mixed  up  with  crude  guesses  of  their  own. 
The  passage  is  given  by  Strack  in  the  Ilerzog-Plitt  Encyklopii- 
die,  vol.  vii.,  art.  "Kanon  des  Alten  Testaments."  It  is  also 
given  in  English,  and  discussed  by  Briggs,  Bibl.  Study,  p.  175  IV. 

Note  VII.  vol.  i.  p.  51.— During  the  Egyptian  war  of  1882  there 
was  a  newspaper  edited  by  an  intimate  associate  of  Arabi,  and 
circulated  widely  among  the  fellaktn  and  those  favourable  to 
Arabi's  cause.  It  gave  most  circumstantial  and  minute  details 
of  his  operations  and  glowing  accounts  of  his  victories.  The 
readers  of  this  paper  believed,  for  example,  that  a  midshipman 
who  lost  his  way  on  the  sands  somewhere  near  Kefr  Dawar,  and 
was  taken  prisoner,  was  the  admiral  of  the  British  fleet;  and 
their  belief  was  encouraged  by  the  attention  bestowed  on  the 
prisoner,  and  the  state  in  which  he  was  made  to  live  in  one  of 
the  palaces.     They  also  believed  that  Arabi's  troops  had  many 


Notes.  259 

successful  engagements  with  tbe  British;  and,  as  a  native 
writer  says,  had  the  sum  of  the  British  reported  as  killed  been 
added  up,  it  would  have  amounted  to  ten  times  their  whole  act- 
ual number  (Scottish  Review,  April  1887,  p.  386).  A  copy  of 
this  paper,  dated  a  day  or  so  before  the  battle  of  Tel-el-Kebir, 
was  picked  up  in  the  trenches  by  a  British  soldier,  and  used  as 
letter-paper  to  write  to  his  friends  at  home.  I  had  the  good 
fortune  to  see  it,  and  I  found  it  full  of  the  most,  extravagant  ac- 
counts of  the  doings  of  the  rebel  army  on  the  very  eve  of  its 
discomfiture.  What  would  a  future  historian  make  of  a  com- 
plete file  of  this  paper? 

Note  VIII.  vol.  i.  p.  59. — It  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  enter 
into  critical  questions  as  to  the  composition  and  the  original 
' '  sources  "  of  the  various  books ;  but  a  brief  statement  of  the 
chief  critical  conclusions  and  designations  is  here  desirable. 
The  oldest  of  all  the  historical  authorities  recognised  by  critics 
are  those  songs,  or  poetical  pieces,  which  presumably  had  their 
rise  in  connection  with  stirring  events,  and  were,  in  the  first  in- 
stance, handed  down  orally.  The  song  of  Deborah,  says  Stade, 
bears  traces  of  having  been  composed  under  the  immediate  im- 
pression of  the  victory  it  celebrates,  and  it  is  usually  appealed 
to  as  one  of  the  oldest  sources  of  historical  information.  The 
Ilexateuch  {i.e.,  the  six  books  Genesis  to  Joshua)  is  regarded 
as  one  great  composite  work,  within  which  several  large  com- 
ponent parts  (to  say  nothing  of  redactional  matter)  of  diff'erent 
dates  are  distinguishable.  The  book  of  Deuteronomy  may  be 
set  aside  as  a  part  by  itself  with  well-marked  features.  There 
remain  two  larger  sources,  capable  again  of  minor  subdivision. 
The  first  of  these  in  historical  order  is  a  story-book,  now  usually 
designated  (after  "Wellhausen)  J  E.,  having  been  originally  two 
books,  one  (J)  characterised  by  the  use  of  the  name  Jahaveh, 
the  other  (E)  by  the  use  of  the  name  Elohim,  the  former  belong- 
ing probably  to  the  southern  kingdom,  the  latter  to  the  north- 
ern. They  are  both  of  prophetical  or  popular  character.  Well- 
hausen's  school  makes  J  the  earlier,  placing  it  in  the  middle  of 
the  ninth  century  b.c,  while  E  would  fall  not  later  than  750  b.c. 
Both  of  these  may  have  incorporated  older  sources,  and    may 


260  Notes. 

both  have  been  originally  of  larger  compass;  they  are  now  so 
closely  joined  together  that  a  separation  of  them  in  their  original 
entireness  may  be  considered  impossible.  This  combined  source 
J  E  is  often  designated  the  Jehovist,  to  distinguish  it  from  J, 
the  simple  Jahvist.  The  other  great  component  part  of  the  Hex- 
ateuch  used  to  be  called  the  Grundschrift  or  Fundamental  Writ- 
ing, because  it  was  regarded  as  the  earliest  main  source,  a  sort 
of  backbone  about  which  the  other  parts  were  grouped.  Its  first 
portion  is  the  opening  chapter  of  Genesis,  and  in  the  remainder 
of  that  book  those  portions  that  are  headed  "  these  are  the  gen- 
erations," &c.,  belong  to  it,  and  hence  Ewald  called  it  the  ''Book 
of  Origins."  It  was  also  called  the  "Older  Elohist,"  to  distin- 
guish it.from  the  Elohistic  story-book,  now  called  E.  The  main 
portion  of  *it  lies  in  the  middle  books,  particularly  in  Leviticus, 
and  from  this  part,  which  is  its  most  striking  feature,  this  source 
is  now  usually  denoted  by  P. — i.e.,  Priestly  source.  Wellhausen 
thinks  that  the  kernel  of  this  work  was,  what  he  designates  Q 
{=quatuor,  four),  a  work  containing  the  four  covenants  (Gen.  i. 
28-30,  ix.  1-17,  xvii. ;  Exod.  vi.  2  ff.)  This  great  source  is  now 
regarded,  not  as  the  underlying  fundamental  document,  but,  so 
to  speak,  the  final  encircling  framework,  which  held  all  the  others 
together  in  a  systematic  scheme,  and  in  date  it  is  declared  to  be 
exilic.  Some  critics  recognise  more,  some  less,  pre-existing 
material  within  its  own  proper  domain ;  and  it  need  not  be  said, 
the  views  as  to  the  processes  by  which  the  whole  composite  Hex- 
ateuch  grew  to  its  present  form,  vary  considerably  (see  chap.  vi. 
p.  1»5  fl".)  As  to  the  other  historical  books,  the  books  of  Kings 
bear  on  their  face  that  they  were  composed  in  the  time  of  the 
exile  (whatever  earlier  materials  they  may  embody).  In  1  Kings 
vii.-viii.,  Wellhausen  recognises  marks  of  the  influence  of  the 
(still  later)  Priestly  Code  (Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  280).  The  book  of 
Judges,  besides  an  introduction  (i.  1-ii.  5)  and  an  appendix  (xvii.- 
xxi.),  is  made  up  of  a  number  of  stories,  recounting  tlie  exploits 
of  local  heroes.  These  stories,  liowever,  are  set  in  a  framework, 
said  to  be  from  a  difierent  hand,  explaining  in  stereotyped 
l)hrase  how  tiie  various  oppressions  came  about.  \w\\  the  deliv- 
erer was  raised  up,  and  how  long  the  otfects  of  the  deliverance 
lasted.     The  chapters  at  the  end  (xix.-xxi.)  Stade  calls  a  "  tend- 


Notes.  261 

ency  romance,"  fully  in  accord  with  the  Priestly  source  (Gesch., 
i.  p.  71).  Wellhausen,  however  (Hist.,  p.  237),  does  not  make 
this  portion  so  late  as  P.  C,  with  the  exception  of  one  reference 
to  the  "congregation,"  and  the  mention  of  Phinehas.  So  he 
says  (Hist.,  p.  256)  that  1  Sam.  vii.,  viii.,  x.  17  f.,  xii.,  betray  a 
close  relationship  with  those  chapters  of  the  book  of  Judges. 

Note  IX.  vol.  i.  p.  85. — The  hieroglyphic  system  is  found  in  per- 
fection on  the  monuments  of  the  18th  and  19th  dynasties— f.e., 
earlier  than  the  exodus.  But  by  that  time  it  was  a  venerable  sys- 
tem ;  for  remains  of  monuments  from  even  the  4th  dynasty  ex- 
hibit a  character  essentially  identical  with  that  found  in  the  in- 
scriptions of  Thothmes  and  Rameses.  Budge,  in  speaking  of 
the  cover  of  the  sarcophagus  of  Menkau  Ra  (or  Mycerinus),  of  the 
4th  dynasty  (dated  by  Brugsch,  36.33  B.C.),  says:  There  is  little 
difierence  between  the  shape  of  the  hieroglyphics  of  those  daj's 
and  those  of  a  much  later  date;  and  however  far  Ave  may  go 
back,  we  never  come  to  an  inscription  belonging  to  a  period  in 
which  we  can  see  that  the  Egyptians  were  learning  to  write 
(Dwellers  on  the  Nile,  p.  63).  In  1847  was  published  by  Prisse 
a  facsimile  of  a  papyrus  found  in  a  tomb  of  the  11th  dynasty  (Le., 
some  centuries  earlier  than  Mosos).  Old  as  it  is,  it  is  a  copy  of 
an  original  work  composed  by  a  writer  of  the  5th  dynasty;  and, 
to  crown  all,  the  original  author,  who  is  an  old  man,  laments 
over  the  good  old  times  that  are  gone.  A  translation  of  Pen- 
taur's  poem  by  Professor  Lushington  is  contained  in  Records  of 
the  Past,  first  ser.,  vol.  ii.  p.  65  ff.  Comp.  Budge,  Dwellers  on 
the  Nile,  chap.  v.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  it  exhibits  the 
system  of  parallelism  which  is  so  characteristic  of  Hebrew- 
poetry,  and  has  other  resemblances  to  the  lyrical  and  prophetical 
style  of  the  Old  Testament. 

Note  X.  vol.  i.  p.  129. — How  very  early  the  Messianic  expecta- 
tion had  taken  a  precise  form  may  be  gathered  from  the  way  Amos 
speaks  of  the  "day  of  Jahaveh  "  (v.  18-20.)  This  expression, 
which  appears  so  prominently  throughout  prophetic  literatui-o, 
was  evidently  by  his  time  in  common  use  to  denote  "a  good 
time  coming."    The  polemic  of  the  prophet  implies  this,  as  it 


262  Notes. 

also  teaches  the  fundamental  conception  of  the  "cycle"  of  his- 
tory to  which  reference  is  made  above,  vol.  i.  p.  130- 

Note  XI.  vol.  i.  p.  138.— Robertson  Smith  saj's:  "That  the  di- 
vision of  Israel  into  twelve  tribes  did  not  assume  its  present  shape 
till  after  the  conquest  of  Canaan,  is  recognised  by  most  recent  in- 
quirers "  (Kinship  and  Marriage  in  Early  Arabia,  p.  219).  Stade 
tells  us  that  no  historical  recollection  goes  back  to  the  time  of 
the  entrance  of  the  Israelites  into  Western  Palestine  (Geschichte, 
i.  p.  147) ;  that  there  were  never  twelve  tribes  at  one  and  the 
same  time,  but  sometimes  more,  sometimes  fewer,  and  that 
only  by  artificial  means  was  the  number  twelve  made  out  (a 
number  found  in  the  similar  legends  of  other  peoples),  either  by 
leaving  out  Levi,  or  by  making  Ephraim  and  Manasseh  one. 
The  system,  he  says,  is  due  to  the  priests,  and  grew  up  at  the 
sanctuaries  to  confirm  the  general  system  of  patriarchal  legends 
(p.  145).  We  may  conjecture,  he  says,  that  a  system  once  pre- 
vailed, according  to  which  the  tribes  were  represented  as  the 
wives  of  Jacob,  for  the  names  Loah,  Rachel,  Zilpah,  Bilhah, 
are  to  be  taken  as  names  of  Hebrew  tribes.  Independent 
of  this  there  must  have  been  a  genealogy  representing  the 
tribes  as  sons,  as  is  apparent  from  the  fact  that  Leah  is  just 
another  form  of  Levi;  but  the  legendary  cycle  which  knew  the 
tribe  of  Levi  in  the  form  of  Leah,  wife  of  Jacob,  knew  nothing 
of  the  legend  which  represented  it  as  Levi,  the  son  of  Jacob, 
and  rice  rersd  (p.  146).  Moreover,  the  principle  of  genealogy 
must  have  crossed  other  systems  of  division,  particularly  the 
geographical  system,  by  which  tribes  contiguous  in  situation 
were  represented  as  consanguineous.  Yet,  after  allowing  him- 
self all  this  latitude  and  choice  of  explanations,  Stade  cannot, 
e.(j.,  account  for  the  fact  that  Reuben,  an  insignificant  tribe, 
was  made  the  firstborn  (unless,  i)erhaps,  as  he  suggests,  it  was 
just  hecanse  this  was  an  insignificant  tribe,  i)ut  forth.  .«*o  to 
speak,  as  a  neutral-coloured  llgure-head  to  allay  the  jealousies 
of  the  two  great  rival  ti'ibes.  .ludali  and  Ephraim |.  Nor  can  he 
explain  why  Zebulon  and  Issacliar  (nortliern  tribes)  are  grouped 
with  Judah  under  Leah,  and  Asher  (west)  with  Gad  (east)  under 
Zilpah.    It  seems  also  an  extraordinary  statement  to  make,  that 


Notes.  263 

:he  circles  which  knew  of  Levi  and  Leah  as  the  son  and  wife 
respectivel.y  of  Jacob,  knew  nothing  of  the  legendary  beliefs  of 
one  another ;  for  one  wonld  suppose  that  if  the  tribal  genealo- 
gies were  preserved  anywhere,  it  would  be  in  the  tribe  con- 
cerned; and  yet  one  part  of  the  tribe,  on  this  supposition, 
would  not  know  wliat  the  other  part  thouglit  of  themselves.  It 
seems  to  me,  that  to  place  the  formation  of  all  this  legendary 
matter,  as  Stade  does,  in  the  time  of  the  divided  monarchy 
(p.  147),  is  not  justifiable  in  the  face  of  the  song  of  Deborah, 
nor  consistent  with  his  own  position  stated  elsewhere  (p.  396), 
that  the  monarchical  system,  by  concentrating  power,  struck  at 
tlie  religious  system  on  which  tribal  formation  rests,  not  to 
speak  of  the  opposition  of  the  Jahaveh  religion  to  the  same 
ideas.  In  other  words,  the  system  requires  longer  time  to  grow, 
and  presupposes  a  much  more  primitive  condition  of  society 
than  his  assumption  implies.  Much  more  may  this  be  said  of 
tlie  explanation,  favoured  by  Robertson  Smith,  of  the  tribal 
system  by  the  belief  and  practice  of  totemism,  on  the  ground  of 
tlie  animal  names  of  some  of  the  tribes  (Kinship,  &c..  I.e.) 
The  last-named  writer  claims  to  have  pointed  out  that  the  name 
Sarah  or  Sarai  corresponds  as  closely  with  Israel  as  Leah  does 
Avith  Levi;  and  argues  hence  that,  as  Abraham  was  originally  a 
Judaean  hero,  we  have  an  exi)lanation  how  Sarah  (=  Israel) 
was  Abraham's  sister  before  she  came  to  be  called  his  wife  and 
the  mother  of  Israel  and  Judah  alike  (ibid..  Note  XI.  to  chap,  i., 
p.  257).  The  great  difliculty  is  to  find  room  for  the  develop- 
ment that  all  this  implies  within  the  firm  historical  limits  pre- 
scribed by  our  written  documents.  The  personality  of  the  pa- 
triarchs, as  tribal  heads,  is  not  inconsistent  with  a  growth  of 
tribes  by  accretion,  as  modern  Arab  practice  shows.  The  Bib- 
lical theory,  placing  a  long  period  between  the  patriarchs  and 
the  exodus,  allows  room  for  this;  but  Stade  does  not,  by  ascrib- 
ing the  tribal  formation  and  the  growth  of  the  legends  to  the 
times  succeeding  the  invasion  of  Canaan.  As  to  a  tribe' not 
knowing  its  father,  as  he  asserts,  see  an  article  by  Curtiss  in 
Expositor,  third  series,  vol.  vi.  p.  328  f.  Stade's  assertion  that 
no  historical  recollection  goes  back  to  the  time  of  the  entrance 
into  Canaan,  is  met  by  the  concurrent   testinnonv  of  all    the 


264  Notes. 

sources,  and  the  clear  voice  of  the  earliest  wiitiu^  prophets,  to 
the  effect  that  Israel  came  out  of  Egypt. 


Note  XIL  vol.  i.  p.  142.— Yet  the  only  passage  in  which  Abra- 
ham appears  as  a  warrior  (Gen.  xiv.,  in  which  the  rescue  of  Lot  is 
described)  is  relegated  by  Wellhausen  and  Kuenen  to  post-exilic 
times,  and  declared  to  be  quite  unhistorical.  The  chapter  is  a 
veritable  crux  for  modern  criticism  ;  it  will  not  allow  itself  to  be 
classed  with  any  of  the  main  sources,  and  so  Kautzsch  and  Socin 
print  it  in  a  type  by  itself  (Die  Genesis,  mit  ausserer  Unter- 
scheidung  der  Quellenschriften).  Wellhausen  declares  that  it 
may  be  described,  like  Melchizedec,  as  "without  father,  without 
mother,  without  genealogy."  Critics  of  a  more  moderate  type 
(as  Schrader,  Dillmann,  and  Kittel)  regard  it  as  an  old  independ- 
ent piece  (perhaps  borrowed  from  a  native  Palestinian  source) 
taken  up  by  E.  To  which  "Wellhausen  replies  that  this  is  the  last 
document  to  which  it  should  be  assigned,  since  in  E  Abraham  is 
represented  as  a  "Muslim"  and  a  prophet,  but  never  a  warrior. 
Neither,  says  he,  does  the  glorification  of  Jerusalem  (the  south- 
ern sanctuary)  suit  E,  a  northern  story-teller.  Most  probably, 
he  concludes,  the  final  redactor  who  united  J  E  with  Q,  took  up 
this  recital,  which  had  no  connection  with  the  antecedent  and 
subsequent  context  (Composition  des  llexateuchs,  p]).  26,  310). 
So  Kuenen  calls  it  a  post-exilic  version  of  Abram's  life,  a  Mid- 
rash  (Hexateucii,  sect.  16). 

Note  XIII.  vol.  i.  p.  149.-11.  G.  Tomkins.  in  his  '  Studies  on 
the  Times  of  Abraham"  (Bagster.  1S7S).  has  brought  together 
much  interesting  matter,  drawn  from  recent  ardueologicul  re- 
search. Reference  may  bo  nuide  also  to  Deane's  -  Abrahaui ;  His 
Life  and  Times,'  in  the  ">[en  of  the  Bible"  Series.  It  is  time  that 
an  extreme  criticism,  which  will  persist  in  rei)resenting  Israel  as 
groping  its  way  out  of  the  most  primitive  ideas,  while  civilisa- 
tion prevailed  around  them,  should  bend  to  the  force  of  facts 
which  are  multiiilying  every  day.  Wluit  has  been  done  in  the 
field  of  Homoric  studies  should  not  be  without  its  lesson  to  Bib- 
lical students. 


Notes.  265 

Note  XIV.  vol.  i.  p.  192.— Robertson  Smith  (Religion  of  Se- 
mites, first  series,  p.  92  ff.)  has  an  ingenious  discussion  of  the  origi- 
nal signification  of  haal,  in  which  he  relies  much  on  the  Arabic 
expression  (baal  land),  which  denotes  land  nourished  by  subter- 
ranean waters.  Whether  his  conclusion  be  right  or  not,  it»is  ev- 
ident that  a  good  deal  must  have  happened  before  a  god  under 
the  earth  beneath  became  the  chief  god  in  the  heaven  above ; 
and  also  that  by  the  time  we  reach  the  stage  of  conception  of 
the  earliest  Hebrew  writing  (not  to  say  language),  in  which 
"  baal  means  the  master  of  a  house,  the  owner  of  a  field,  cattle, 
or  the  like,"  we  are  very  far  indeed  from  the,  original  Semitic 
conception,  if,  indeed,  that  order  of  development  took  place  at 
all.  In  this  very  learned  work  there  are  too  many  sudden  leaps 
from  primitive  notions  of  Semitic  peoples  to  such  an  advanced 
stage  of  thought  as  is  represented  by  the  prophets.  In  my 
opinion,  the  work  would  have  been  as  valuable  a  contribution 
to  our  knowledge  of  the  common  Semitic  religion,  and  much 
less  confusing  and  inconsequent,  had  the  author  not  proceeded 
on  the  assumption  that  the  theory  of  the  history  of  Israel  set 
forth  by  Wellhausen  and  Kuenen  is  established,  or,  as  he  states 
the  matter,  that  the  researches  of  writers  of  that  school  have 
"carried  this  inquiry  to  a  point  where  nothing  of  vital  import- 
ance for  the  historical  study  of  the  Old  Testament  religion  still 
remains  uncertain  "  (Pref. ,  p.  vii.)  The  precariousuess  of  the 
philological  argument,  so  much  employed  by  him,  is  seen  in  the 
fact  that  expressions  illustrating  what  are  claimed  as  primitive 
beliefs  are  found  as  frequently  in  undoubtedly  late  as  in  early 
writers.  In  the  Archaeological  Review  (vol.  iii..  No.  3,  1889) 
there  is  an  article  on  Totemism  by  Jos.  Jacobs,  who  comes  to  the 
conclusion  that,  although  not  only  certain  names  of  Edomite 
and  even  Israelite  tribes,  and  also  prohibitions  of  food,  family 
feasts,  and  so  forth,  possibly  allow  the  inference  of  pre-existing' 
totemism,  there  cannot  be  a  thought  of  "its  actual  existence  in 
historic  times."  And  it  is  with  historic  times  that  we  are  cou' 
cerned. 

Note  XV.  vol.  i.  p.  193. — The  name  Elohim,  which  is  a  plural 
form,  has  been  taken  by  many  to  prove  that  polytheism  was  the 


266  Notes. 

original  belief  of  the  Hebrews.  Baudissin  (Sturlien  zur  Semit. 
Religions.i:;esch.,  Ileft  I.  p.  55  11.)  says  that  the  i)lural  designation 
of  God  can  only  have  arisen  through  the  ascription  to  One  of  all 
the  powerd  that  resided  in  dillerent  deities.  To  which  Baethgen 
(Beitriige  zur  Semitischen  Religionsgeschichte,  p.  132  ft",  and  p. 
297)  objects  that  this  is  to  give  to  the  word  an  origin  in  panthe- 
ism, of  which  we  have  no  trace  in  any  Old  Testament  writer;  and 
that  if  the  God  of  the  Israelites  were  only  the  sum  of  all  other 
gods,  he  could  not  be  set  over  against  them  nor  over  them.  As 
to  the  idea  that  the  plural  form  may  have  been  a  summing  up  of 
all  the  gods  or  divine  i)owers  which  /.v?v<e/ acknowledged,  he  ob- 
jects that,  in  that  case,  we  should  have  exi)ected  to  find  traces  of 
the  names  of  such  other  supposed  gods,  and  also  to  find  a  singu- 
lar noun  to  denote  one  of  the  Elohim.  The  singular  word 
Eloah,  which  at  all  events  is  poetical  and  rare,  he  supposes  to 
be  a  later  formation  from  the  plural  which  was  in  common  use. 
Max  Midler  tells  us  (Selected  Essays,  vol.  ii.  p.  414)  that  no 
language  forms  a  plural  before  a  singular;  but  it  cannot  be  de- 
nied that  in  this  instance  the  singular  form  is  little  used,  and  the 
l)lural  word  is  used  not  only  to  denote  the  "  gods  "  collectively  of 
the  nations,  ))ut  even  to  denote  any  one  of  those  (see  Judges  xi. 
24;  1  Sam.  v.  7;  1  Kings  xi.  5;  2  Kings  i.  2,  3,  6,  16;  Isa. 
xxxvii.  38)  as  well  as  the  one  God  of  Israel.  Baethgen  empha- 
sises the  striking  fact  that  Israel,  from  whom  in  any  case  mono- 
theism came,  is  the  only  Semitic  people  which  employs  this  plu- 
ral form  of  the  divine  name,  whereas  all  the  other  Semitic 
nations  have  a  singidar  name  for  deity,  even  though  they  were 
l)olytheists  (ib.,  p.  1.*}!)).  If  the  name  did  not  indicate  from  the 
beginning  a  plurality  of  majesty  or  of  attributes,  it  can  at  most 
only  be  taken  as  a  proof  of  primeval  or  primitive  p»)lytheism; 
but  it  cannot  be  taken  as  a  proof  of  polytheism  after  the  time  of 
Abraham.  Robertson  Smith  is  inclined  to  believe  that  the  idea 
underlying  the  plural  Elohim  Is  that  of  "vague  i)lurality  in  the 
conception  of  the  Godhead  as  associated  with  special  sjxits,  .  .  . 
and  that  not  in  the  sense  of  a  delinite  number  of  clearly  Indiv- 
idual deities,  but  with  the  same  Indefiniteness  as  characterises 
the  conception  of  the.//////"  (Religion  of  the  Semites,  first  series, 
p.  42(;).     Tliis  seems  to  lie  the  sense  attaeluMl  to  the  word  bv  M. 


Notes,  2G7 

Renaii,  who  describes  the  Elohim  as  "  myriads  of  active  beings 
very  analogous  to  tiie  '  spirits '  of  savages,  living,  translucid,  in- 
separable in  some  sort  the  one  from  the  other,  not  having  dis- 
tinct proper  names  like  the  Aryan  gods  "  (HistOire  du  Peuple 
d'Israel,  i.  p.  30).  If  this  be  the  original  sense  attached  to  the 
name,  it  is  not  the  sense  as  given  by  the  Biblical  writers  to  their 
national  deity  within  the  times  of  which  we  speak;  or  if  the 
Israelites  at  the  time  of  the  prophets  or  from  the  time  of 
Moses  believed  in  the  existence  of  such  beings  as  are  here 
described,  they  evidently  ranked  them  as  very  inferior  to  the 
national  God. 

NoteXVL  vol.  i.  p.  203.— The  expression  "the  Lord  of  hosts" 
(Jahaveh  Cebaoth)  is  found  in  a  double  sense  in  the  Old  Testament 
writings.  The  "  hosts,"  in  the  one  case,  are  the  armies  of  Israel 
(Exod.  vii.  4,  xii.  41,  51 ;  compare  1  Sam.  xvii.  45)  whom  Jaha- 
veh leads  to  victory;  and  this  use  is  found  in  the  early  historical 
books,  having  apparently  arisen  or  been  stimulated  by  the  mil- 
itary experiences  of  the  early  history.  In  the  prophets,  however 
(see,  e.g.,  Hos.  xii.  5),  we  see  that  the  expression  was  no  longer, 
or  no  longer  simply,  limited  in  reference  to  armies,  but  included 
the  heavenly  host,  the  stars  and  angels.  So  the  lxx.  often  ren- 
der by  the  word  TtavroKparajp.  (See  art.  Zebaoth  in  Herzog- 
Plitt,  Realencykl.,  vol.  xvii.  p.  427.)  Sayce's  remark  might  give 
the  impression  that  the  latter  use  is  the  more  original,  and  some 
have  concluded  that  this  reference  is  primitive.  Against  this 
view,  however,  has  to  be  set  the  fact  that  the  expression  seems 
to  have  come  into  use  in  connection  with  military  exploits. 
Kautzsch  has  pointed  out  (in  Stade's  Zeitschrift  fiir  Altte«t. 
Wissenschaft,  1886,  p.  17)  that  in  the  connections  in  which  it  oc- 
curs in  the  early  historical  books,  it  either  is  closely  associated 
with  the  ark,  the  symbol  of  Jahaveh's  leadership,  or  otherwise 
has  a  warlike  reference.  Konig  has  also  pointed  out  (Haupt- 
probleme,  p.  50)  that  the  host  of  heaven  is  denoted  by  the  sin- 
gular word,  not  by  the  plural  Cebaoth.  In  the  prophetic  (and 
as  he  concludes  later)  use,  this  plural  designation  embraces  both 
the  earthly  and  the  heavenly  hosts. 


268  Notes. 

Note  XVII.  vol.  i.  p.  208.— For  a  thorough-going  treatment  of 
the  01(1  Testament  on  the  mythological  method  nothing  can 
surpass  the  work  of  Goldziher  (Mythology  among  the  Hebrews, 
translated  by  Russell  Martiueauj,  who  explains  the  characters 
in  Genesis  and  Judges  almost  uniformly  as  sky-myths.  I  do 
not  tliink  that  the  myth  of  the  dawn  is  now  taken  so  seriously 
as  it  used  to  be.  The  temptation,  however,  seems  to  be  strong 
with  some  minds  to  look  for  an  ancient  mythology  underlying 
the  primeval  or  even  the  patriarchal  history.  It  is  well  known 
that  old  heathen  deities  survive  under  the  guise  of  heroes  and 
mythical  ancestors,  and  it  is  therefore  quite  legitimate  to  exam- 
ine the  names  and  records  relating  to  those  earliest  times,  to 
see  whether  they  rest  on  such  a  mythical  basis.  "We  can  only 
here  refer  to  attempts  that  have  been  made  in  this  direction. 
A  summary  statement  will  be  found  in  Baethgen's  Beitrage  zur 
Semitischen  Religionsgeschichte,  p.  147  ff.  The  conclusion  to 
which  he  comes  is,  that  any  speciousness  which  at  first  sight 
appears  in  the  identification  of  antediluvian  or  patriarchal 
names  with  faded  deities  disappears  on  closer  inspection,  either 
because  the  supposed  deities  are  not  otherwise  traceable  in 
Semitic  religion,  or  because  the  names  are  susceptible  of  a 
much  simpler  explanation,  or  because  the  explanations  given 
break  down  at  the  decisive  point.  As  to  the  story  of  Samson, 
which  aflTords  such  ample  scope  to  the  advocates  of  the  sun- 
myth  (Steinthal,  Zeitschrift  fiir  Ytilkerpsychologie,  1862,  ii.  p. 
129  IT.,  translated  in  Goldziher's  work),  it  has  always  seemed  to 
me  that  the  mythological  features  are  too  strongly  marked  for 
the  period  at  which  Samson  is  placed — i.e.,  he  is  surrounded,  in 
the  i)eriod  of  the  Judges,  by  characters  so  thoroughly  human, 
that  he  would  be  a  glaring  litorary  anachronism  as  a  pure  sun- 
mytli.  It  may  be  that  some  traits  of  the  story  are  coloured  by 
folk-lore  (though,  on  the  other  hand,  there  are  others  that  will 
not  be  constrained  into  mythology  by  even  the  most  violent 
methods),  but  that  is  very  diflerent  from  saying  that  he  was  not 
a  hero  such  as  the  story  paints  him.  Any  traces  of  mythology 
to  be  found  in  the  Old  Testament  are  far  less  elaborate.  They 
may  be  said  to  be  mere  traces,  either  remains  of  an  extinct 
systom  or  rudiments  that  wore  never  developed, — such  as  the  ref- 


Notes.  269 

erences  to  the  "sons  of  God  and  the  daughters  of  men,"  Rahab, 
Leviathan,  Tannin,  and  suchlike.  These,  it  should  be  observed, 
as  they  lie  before  us  in  the  books,  are  handled  with  perfect  can- 
dour and  simplicity,  as  if  to  the  writers  they  had  become  di- 
vested of  all  dangerous  or  misleading  associations,  or  were  even 
nothing  more  than  figures  of  speech.  They  may,  in  part,  as 
Flockner  and  Baethgen  suggest,  have  been  adopted  from  non- 
Hebraic  sources,  just  as  classical  allusions  are  found  in  modern 
poets.  I  cannot  in  a  brief  note  go  as  fully  into  the  question  as 
I  should  like,  but  I  have  a  very  strong  impression  that  in  the 
particular  of  the  "  Dawn,"  which  Cheyne  seems  to  think  points 
to  a  whole  system  of  early  mythology,  we  have  a  crucial  in- 
stance of  the  different  mental  attitudes  of  the  Hebrew  and 
Arj^an  races.  I  believe  there  is  no  Semitic  heathen  god  of  the 
dawn,  nor  in  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  any  hint  of  the  contest  of 
light  with  darkness.  The  name  of  the  dawn  in  Hebrew  is  indu- 
bitably based  on  the  idea  of  darkness,  so  that  the  dawn  is  pri- 
marily the  Morrjenddmmerung,  not  the  Morgenrbthe.  I  should 
say  that  we  have  an  undoubted  instance  of  its  use  in  this  sense 
in  Joel  ii.  2,  "  dawn  spread  upon  the  mountains  " — an  exact  pic- 
ture of  the  gloom  caused  by  the  cloud  of  locusts.  And  I  ven- 
ture to  suggest  to  scholars  the  possibility  of  giving  the  same 
sense  to  the  word  in  the  much-discussed  passage  Isaiah  viii.  20, 
which,  without  the  supplying  of  a  single  word  or  any  violence 
to  grammar,  might  read,  "To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony: 
should  they  not  speak  according  to  this  word,  which  has  no 
dimness?"  The  standing  phrase  the  "dawn  went  up"  may 
thus  primarily  mean  the  rising  up  of  the  black  cover  of  night, 
so  that  the  sun,  the  only  source  of  light,  may  appear;  and  if  so, 
the  passage  in  Job  (xxxviii.  12  f.)  would  be  all  the  more  strik- 
ing. The  subject  is  worth  more  study  than  it  seems  to  have 
received.  Cheyne  in  his  last  commentary  (The  Book  of  Psalms) 
shows  a  growing  tendency  to  notice  myths  or  supposed  myths 
alluded  to  or  lying  under  Biblical  expressions.  "WTaen  attention 
is  at  every  turn  drawn  in  this  way  to  the  eyelids  of  the  dawn, 
the  sides  of  the  north,  the  sun  as  a  bridegroom  or  strong  man, 
the  speech  of  the  day,  the  gates  of  death,  and  so  forth,  and  the 
mythological  beliefs  of  other  (even  non-Semitic)  peoples  are  ad- 


270  Notes. 

(luced  in  connection,  the  ordinary  reader  can  hardly  be  blamed 
for  concluding  that  the  Hebrew  writers  employing  such  expres- 
sions were  on  the  level  of  heathen  mythologisers.  No  doubt, 
the  qualification  is  sometimes  added  that  the  myth  is  old  or 
faded  or  primitive.  But  if  so,  how  old  is  it?  And  what  proof 
is  there  that  it  was  ever  more  developed  than  we  find  it?  And 
then,  on  this  mode  of  interpretation,  how  much  i)oetry  will  be 
left  us?  Religious  language  is  always  metapliorical;  the  crisis 
in  the  religious  life  of  a  people  comes  when  either  the  metaphor 
is  to  run  away  with  the  thought,  or  the  mind  control  the  meta- 
phor; and  I  maintain  that  the  Hebrew  writers,  from  the  earliest 
point  we  can  reach  them,  though  saturated  with  poetry,  are  free 
from  mj-thology  in  the  ordinary  sense.  At  all  events,  I  would 
submit  that  these  references  are  singularly  out  of  place  in  a 
commentary,  unless  they  are  historicalhj  attested  at  the  time 
of  the  writer.  If  it  is  the  main  object  of  a  commentator  to  ex- 
hibit the  mind  of  the  writer  commented  on,  nothing  but  confu- 
sion can  arise  from  suggesting  to  the  reader  thoughts  which 
could  hardly  have  been  in  the  writer's  mind.  It  is  all  the  more 
out  of  place  when  the  literature  under  consideration  is  post-pro- 
phetic. Whatever  may  be  said  of  the  low  level  from  which  re- 
ligious ideas  among  the  Hebrews  started,  it  will  scarcely  lie 
maintained  that  they  had  a  conscious  belief  in  these  nature- 
myths  by  tlie  time  of  the  exilic  or  post-exilic  literature. 

Note  XVIII.  vol.  i.  p.  218. — David  occupies  so  distinguished  a 
])Osition  in  the  Biblical  theory  of  the  history  that  heroic  measures 
have  to  be  taken  on  the  modern  theory  to  explain  his  true 
standing.  His  personal  character  and  the  religion  of  his  time 
are  described  l)y  Reium  in  terms  which  it  is  not  worth  while  to 
transcribe  (Histoire  du  Peuple  d'Israel.  toni.  ii.  chap.  i..  v.)  A 
word  may  here  be  said  as  to  the  ascription  to  him  l)y  the  Biblical 
tradition  of  the  gift  of  song.  (See  alcove,  vol.  i.  p.  104.)  Vatke. 
relying  on  Amos  vi.  ;'>,  0,  says  that  the  Davidic  muse  had  scarce- 
ly the  prcMloniinant  religious  tendency  which  a  later  age  pre- 
supposed. And  Robertson  Smith  goes  the  length  of  .'sa.ving: 
*'It  is  very  curious  that  the  book  of  Amos  represents  David  as 
the  chosen  model  of  the  difettanti  nobles  of  Ephraim.  who  lay 


Notes,  271 

stretched  on  beds  of  ivory,  anointed  with  the  choicest  perfumes, 
and  mingling  music  with  their  cups  in  the  familiar  manner  of 
oriental  luxury "  (0.  T.  in  the  Jewish  Church,  p.  205).  It  is 
"very  curious,"  certainly,  that  a  learned  professor  should  make 
such  an  assertion,  for  Amos  does  no  such  thing.  All  that  the 
prophet  says  about  David  in  this  connection  is,  that  the  nobles 
in  question  "devise  for  themselves  instruments  of  music  like 
David."  To  make  the  comparison  extend  to  the  whole  passage 
is  monstrous.  The  prophet  tells  the  luxurious  nobles  that  they 
are  enjoying  everything  that  is  best  themselves,  but  "are  not 
grieved  for  the  affliction  of  Joseph  " ;  and  if  there  is  any  infer- 
ence to  be  drawn  as  to  David's  musical  attainments,  it  is  this, 
that  his  instruments  had  the  fame  of  being  the  ne  plus  ultra  of 
their  kind.  There  may  be— probably  there  is— irony  in  the 
prophet's  words,  as  one  might  describe  as  a  Solomon  a  person 
who  made  great  pretence  to  wisdom.  "When  Isaiah  utters  a  woe 
upon  those  who  "  are  mighty  to  drink  wine,  and  men  of  strength 
to  mingle  strong  drink  "  (Isa.  v.  22),  he  does  not  mean  that  all 
athletes  are  drunkards.  Tlie  view  of  iVmos  in  regard  to  the  po- 
sition of  David  in  history  is  found  in  chap.  ix.  11. 

Note  XIX.  vol.  i.  p.  289.— From  the  form  of  the  question  in 
Amos  V.  25,  and  the  emphatic  position  of  the  word  "  sacrifices" 
in  the  original,  it  may  be  concluded  that  the  prophet  expected  a 
negative  answer  to  the  question,  "  Did  ye  offer  sacrilices  to  me  in 
the  wilderness  forty  years,  0  house  of  Israel  ? "  But  this  being 
admitted,  the  difficulties  of  the  passage  only  begin.  Did  he  mean 
to  refer  to  the  desert  period  as  a  good  time,  and  imply— It  was 
not  sacrifice  that  constituted  the  good  feature  of  Israel's  belia- 
viour  then?  Or  did  he  mean  to  say  that  even  in  the  desert  they 
were  a  rebellious  corrupt  people,  or  a  people  under  disi)leasure 
to  such  an  extent  that  sacrifice  would  not  have  been  accepted 
from  them?  Both  Amos  (ii.  10)  and  Hosea  (ix.  10,  xi.  1  fl'.)  refer 
to  the  time  of  the  desert  as  one  of  favour  shown  by  Jahaveh ;  but 
this  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  view  that  they  were  even  then  a 
rebellious  and  backsliding  people,  as  even  these  prophets,  as 
well  as  the  historical  writers,  indicate.  It  may  be,  as  Bred- 
enkamp  maintains,  that  the  forty  years  is  given  as  a  round 


'272  Notes. 

number  to  indicate  the  greater  part  of  the  period — viz.,  thirty- 
eight  years — when  the  people  were  under  chastisement  (see 
Deut.  ix.  7  ff. ;  Josh.  v.  6),  and  excluding  the  two  years 
spent  about  Sinai,  when  the  legal  system  is  represented  as 
having  been  organised.  Apart  from  this,  however,  the  dif- 
ficulties of  the  passage  in  the  present  connection  begin  at  v. 
26.  For  whereas  some  writers  (as  Daumer  and  Kuenen)  see  a 
reference  to  the  past,  and  make  the  prophet  declare  that  this 
idolatrous  worship  was  practised  in  the  desert,  others  (as  Rob- 
ertson Smith,  Konig,  Schrader,  &c.)  take  the  reference  to  be  to 
the  future,  "So  shall  ye  take  up  (viz.,  on  the  road  to  exile)  the 
stake  (or  column)  of  your  king,  and  the  pedestal  of  your  im- 
ages," <fec.  (see  Queen's  Printer's  Bible).  Bredenkamp  (Gesetz 
u.  Propheten,  p.  83  ff.,  who  takes  v.  26  to  refer  to  the  past)  dis- 
cusses the  passage  at  some  length.  See  also  Robertson  Smith, 
Prophets,  pp.  140,  399;  Wellhauseu,  Hist,  p.  56;  Konig,  Haupt- 
probleme,  p.  9.  As  to  the  idolatrous  objects  named,  see 
Schrader,  Cuneiform  Inscriptions,  Eng.  tr.,  vol.  ii.  p.  Ul  f.  Why 
is  it,  by  the  way,  that  Amos  should  be  considered  such  an 
authority  on  the  stars  in  this  passage,  and  yet  not  be  allowed  to 
be  the  author  of  passages  that  speak  of  them  in  connection  with 
Jahaveh's  greatness?    (Amos  v.  8). 

Note  XX.  vol.  i.  p.  293. — Daumer,  of  course,  makes  a  great  deal 
of  all  these  cases  (pp.  26  ff.),  arguing  that  the  expression  "before 
the  Lord  "  denotes  a  formal  religious  act  or  ceremony  of  worship. 
It  may  be  conceded  that  the  expression  has  a  religious  reference 
— i.e.,  that  it  was  under  a  strong  religious  impulse  that  Samuel 
slew  Agag,  and  that  David  thought  he  was  performing  a  "  reli- 
gious duty,"  as  we  say,  in  giving  up  Saul's  descendants  to  what 
was  no  doubt  a  cruel  and  unmerited  fate.  All  this,  however,  is 
far  from  proving  that  human  sacrifice  was  part  of  the  recognised 
worship.  That  the  sacredness  of  human  life  was  not  so  great  in 
the  age  of  David  and  Samuel  as  to  outweigh  what  was  regarded 
as  a  sacred  obligation  t>r  blood  claim  on  the  other  side,  need  not 
siuprise  any  tme  who  believes  in  a  progressive  education  in 
morality.  When  (not  so  long  ago)  men  were  hanged  in  this 
country  for  sheep-stealing,  it  was  done  in  obedience  to  what 


Notes.  2t3 

were  regarded  as  the  sacred  demands  of  justice.     See  Mozley'a 
'Ruling  Ideas  in  Early  Ages.' 

Note  XXI.  vol.  ii.  p.  41. — The  distinction  between  monotheism 
and  monolatry  is  one  that  it  is  easy  for  us  to  draw.  At  the  same 
time,  the  important  point  in  this  discussion  is  whether  the  Isra- 
elites worshipped  only  one  God,  and  what  was  the  character 
they  assigned  to  Him.  It  is  quite  probable  that  it  never  oc- 
curred to  them  to  ask  themselves  what  precisely  were  the  gods 
of  the  nations  around  them ;  and,  as  is  shown  in  the  text,  had 
they  put  such  a  question,  they  would  very  probably  have  been 
at  a  loss  for  an  answer.  We  must  not  look  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment for  what  it  does  not  profess  to  give.  Max  Mliller  speaks 
of  a  primitive  intuition  of  God  which  he  calls  henotheism; 
which  in  itself  is  neither  monotheistic  nor  polytheistic,  though 
it  might  become  either,  according  to  the  expression  which  it 
took  in  the  languages  of  men  (Selected  Essays,  vol.  ii.  p.  412  f.) 
His  well-known  explanation  of  the  monotheistic  turn  of  the 
Semitic  races  is  that  their  languages  enabled  those  using  them 
to  keep  in  memory  the  predicative  or  appellative  sense  of  words, 
so  that  they  did  not  run  into  nomina,  which  were  confounded 
with  numina.  But  the  question  always  recurs,  Whence  this 
peculiar  build  of  language,  if  not  from  the  mind  of  those  form- 
ing and  employing  it?  So  that  the  problem  why  the  Semitic 
race  (or  a  part  of  them)  tJiought  in  this  peculiar  way,  is  no 
nearer  solution  on  a  merely  philological  basis.  (Compare 
above,  vol.  i.  p.  211.) 

Note  XXIL  vol.  ii.  pp.  53,  82. — Stade  also,  though  he  speaks 
of  an  intimate  relation  between  Jahaveh  and  Israel  as  subsist- 
ing from  Mosaic  times,  yet  maintains  that  the  designation  of 
this  relation  as  a  covenant  cannot  be  proved  anterior  to  the 
seventh  century  (Gesch.,  i.  p.  507).  The  Hebrew  word  for  cov- 
enant (n^"l2)  is  no  doubt  etymologically  connected  with  a  verb 
("IID)  to  cut,  and  in  its  derivation,  and  in  the  usual  connec- 
tion with  the  verb  n"lD  (to  cut),  there  is  clear  reference  to  sacri- 
ficial rites  in  connection  with  its  ratification.  (See  Gen.  xv.  and 
Delitzsch's  Comment.)    Robertson  Smith  has  pointed  out  the 


274  Notes. 

old  Arab  usages  in  this  matter  (Kinship  and  Marriage,  p.  47  ff. ; 
Religion  of  the  Semites,  296  ff.)  lie  says,  however,  very  appos- 
itely, that  "a  nation  like  Israel  is  not  a  natm'al  unity  like  a 
clan,  and  Jehovah,  as  the  national  God,  was,  from  the  time  of 
Moses  downward,  no  mere  natural  clan  god,  but  the  god  of  a 
confederation,  so  that  here  the  idea  of  a  covenant  religion  is 
entirely  justified."  He  thus  seems  to  take  the  original  sense  of 
the  word  as  (TvvBrjKri,  with  a  reciprocal  sense.  Others,  less 
properly,  give  it  the  sense  of  8iaBr}Krj,  from  the  idea  of  decis- 
ion, determination,  and  then  institution.  Though  this  is  not  to 
be  maintained,  and  though  the  obligations  resting  upon  God, 
as  one  party  to  the  covenant,  may  not  be  brought  into  the  fore- 
ground, as  being  understood,  yet  we  cannot  conceive  of  a  cov- 
enant without  obligations,  in  the  form  of  commands,  resting  on 
man.  Even  Jeremiah's  new  covenant  implies  a  law  (Jer.  xxxi. 
33).  See  Bredenkamp,  Gesetz  und  Propheten,  p.  22,  and  his 
reff. 

Note  XXITI.  vol.  ii.  p.  57. — It  seems  to  be  generally  taken 
for  granted,  without  proof,  that  the  early  Israelites  knew  little  of 
the  great  outside  world.  Robertson  Smith,  e.  g.,  says  of  the 
times  of  Amos,  "We  are  led  to  suppose  that  the  very  name  of 
Assyria  was  unknown  to  the  mass  of  the  Hebrews  "  (Prophets, 
p.  91).  He  admits,  however,  that  Amos  himself  knew  with  sur- 
prising exactness  the  history  and  geography  of  all  the  nations 
with  whom  the  Hebrews  had  any  converse;  but  instead  of 
taking  one  man  as  the  type  of  many,  as  ho  does  in  the  case  of 
Micah  the  image-maker  in  the  book  of  Judges,  he  supposes 
that  Amos  had  been  a  great  traveller  (ibid.,  p.  128  f.)  For  my 
part,  I  do  not  see  any  reason  to  think  that  Amos,  who  tells  us 
plainly  what  his  manner  of  life  was,  dillered  in  this  particular 
from  the  average  man  of  his  time.  When  the  Franco-Prussian 
war  was  raging  in  Euroi)o,  there  were  numbers  of  Druze  peas- 
ants in  Lebanon,  who  had  never  been  on  a  boat,  inquiring 
eagerly  day  by  day  for  news  of  the  campaign,  and  following 
closely  the  fortunes  of  the  combatants.  Palestine  was  not  so 
large  a  country,  nor  its  people  in  those  times  so  dull,  that  the 
great  Phoenician  trade  could  be  carried  on  about  their  borders 


Notes.  275 

Jero- 
boam was  not  the  only  adveuturer  that  went  from  Palestine  to 
Egypt,  nor  was  Jonah  the  only  Jewish  youth  that  ran  away  to 
sea.  It  has  generally  been  taken  for  granted  that  it  was  only 
after  the  advance  westward  of  the  Assyrian  power  about  the 
eighth  century  that  Israel  came  to  know  of  the  great  Eastern 
world  (Kuobel,  Die  Biicber  Numeri,  &c.,  p.  579);  but  are  we  to 
believe  that  a  people  who  traced  the  origin  of  Abraham  to  the 
East  supposed  that  all  that  region  had  disappeared,  or  ceased 
to  talk  about  it?  The  tenacity  with  which  old  traditions  cling 
to  the  oriental  mind  is  illustrated  by  the  fact  that  the  inhabitants 
of  Syria  at  the  present  day  speak  of  the  Russians  as  Muskobi  or 
Muscovites,  a  recollection  of  the  period  when  Moscow  was  the 
capital  (although  the  name  Russia  is  known  to  old  writers). 
And  I  would  offer  the  conjecture  for  whatever  it  may  be  worth, 
that  the  name  of  Babel  (for  Babylon)  retained  similarly  its  hold 
on  the  Israelite  memory  as  a  designation  of  the  great  Eastern 
country,  in  which  the  supremacy  oscillated  between  Babylon 
and  Assyria.  Schrader  tells  us  (Cuneiform  Inscriptions,  on 
Genesis  xxxvi.  31)  that  the  name  Israel  does  not  occur  in  the 
Inscriptions  as  a  general  name  for  the  Israelites,  nor  does  it 
appear,  as  a  rule,  as  the  name  of  the  northern  kingdom,  the 
designation  of  which  is  usually  "  land  of  the  house  of  Omri.  " 
This  fact  is  full  of  suggestiveness  as  to  the  way  in  which 
"  sources  "  may  be  used. 

Note  XXIV.  vol.  ii.  pp.  80  and  117. — One  of  those  general 
statements  made  without  reflection  on  its  foundation  or  signifi- 
cance, is  that  the  Israelites  who  left  Egypt  at  the  exodus  were  a 
horde  of  slaves.  We  must,  no  doubt,  accept  it  as  the  best  evi- 
dence of  their  servitude  there  that  the  national  consciousness  of 
a  people  otherwise  proud  of  their  freedom,  retained  so  vivid  a  re- 
collection of  their  hard  bondage  and  of  the  "high  baud"  by  which 
they  were  delivered.  Stade's  off-hand  dictum  that  if  any  He- 
brew clan  ever  sojourned  in  Egypt  no  one  knows  its  name,  is 
(not  to  speak  of  the  difficulty  of  finding  traces  of  the  Hjksos 
themselves  in  Egji^t)  opposed  to  the  whole  testimony  of  the  na- 
tion, and,  besides,  leaves  no  room  for  the  development  of  the 


276  Notes. 

pre-proi)betic  ideas  which  lie  himself  is  so  fond  of  tracing.  But 
if  we  admit  that  the  sojourn  of  the  people  in  Egypt  was  a  historical 
fact,  we  must  consider  what  it  implies.  The  things  that  make 
the  deepest  impression  on  the  memory  are  not  necessarily  those 
that  make  the  most  lasting  impression  on  character.  Although 
their  life  was  at  one  time  made  "bitter  in  mortar  and  in  bricks, 
and  in  all  manner  of  service  in  the  field,"  we  are  not  to  suppose 
that  this  went  on  from  generation  to  generation.  Even  during 
the  time  of  this  hard  service  it  is  probable,  judging  by  the  cus- 
toms of  forced  labour  in  the  East,  and  hints  in  the  Hebrew  nar- 
rative, that  they  were  far  from  being,  as  perhaps  the  popular 
concei)tion  represents  them,  an  unorganised  gang  of  slaves. 
They  would  be  arranged  and  drawn  for  labour  by  their  families 
and  under  their  own  chief  or  heads  (Exod.  v.  U  ff.)  And  we 
know  not  what  amount  of  organisation  they  had  reached,  or 
what  experience  of  ordinary  life  they  had  gained  during  a  resi- 
dence of  several  generations  in  a  country  like  Egypt.  The  Egyp- 
tian/e//rt/nO«  in  the  time  of  Mehemet  All  were  probably  as  much 
oppressed  as  the  ancient  Israelites.  Yet,  with  an  army  of  such 
men,  forced  into  the  ranks,  and  fed  on  black  bread  and  onions, 
Ibrahim  Pasha  drove  the  Turks  from  Syria.  "The  History  of 
Israel,"  says  Delitzsch  (Introd.  to  his  Commentary  on  Genesis), 
"  does  not  begin  with  the  condition  of  an  ignorant,  rude,  and  un- 
disciplined horde,  but  with  the  transition  to  a  nation  of  a  race 
which  had  come  to  maturity  amidst  the  most  abundant  means 
and  examples  of  culture."  He  points  out  also  the  influence  of 
the  legalism  and  multiformity  of  Egv'ptian  national  and  private 
life  as  seen  in  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch;  and  dates  from  the 
sojourn  in  Egyi)t  the  first  impulse  to  literary  activity  among  the 
Hebrews.  I  do  not  know  that  there  is  anything  incredible  in 
the  supposition  that  the  book  of  the  Covenant  may  be  the  codi- 
fication of  law  and  custom  that  prevailed  even  in  Egypt  (The 
Kingdom  of  all  Israel,  by  James  wSime,  1883,  chap.  v.  This  is  a 
book  that  no  doubt  will  be  considered  wild  by  critics,  but  is  de- 
serving of  attcMition  for  the  intelligent  and  honest  eflbrt  to  treat 
the  Old  Testament  by  the  same  rules  of  hiritorical  research  as 
have  "been  applied  in  verifying  llie  literature  of  Greece  and 
Rome"). 


Notes.  277 

Note  XXV.  vol.  ii.  p.  89. — There  is  another  passage  in 
Rosea  which  may  be  referred  to  in  this  connection,  not  so  much 
because  of  the  positive  evidence  which  it  furnishes,  as  because  it 
has  been  explained  away  by  those  who  maintain  that  at  the  time 
of  that  prophet  the  Levitical  aspect  of  the  law  is  scarcely  per- 
ceivable. In  Hosea  iv.  4  we  read,  ' '  Thy  people  are  as  they 
that  strive  with  the  priest;  "  and  advocates  of  the  early  existence 
of  the  Deuteronomic  Code  see  in  it  a  reference  to  Deut.  xvii.  12, 
where  it  is  said,  "The  man  that  doeth  presumptuously  is  not 
hearkening  unto  the  priest,  .  .  .  even  that  man  shall  die."  On 
the  other  hand,  the  advocates  of  the  late  production  of  the  Le- 
vitical Code,  and  of  the  lateness  of  the  priestly  authority  gener- 
ally, seek  to  explain  the  passage  as  if  it  contained  a  false  or 
corrupt  reading.  I  think  that  the  explanation  given  by  them 
of  the  expression,  "  As  they  that  strive  with  the  priest,"  is  very 
frigid  and  weak;  and  I  am  prepared  to  defend  the  reading  on 
purely  grammatical  and  literary  grounds.  The  construction  of 
the  particle  kaph  (meaning  like)  with  a  participle  is  found  in 
Hosea  in  so  marked  a  manner  that  it  may  be  said  to  be  an  usus 
loquendi  of  that  prophet.  Thus  in  one  passage  (v.  10)  he  says, 
"The  princes  of  Judah  are  like  them  that  remove  the  land- 
mark;" and  in  another  place  (xi.  4),  "I  was  to  them  as  they 
that  take  off  the  yoke  on  their  jaws; "  and  in  another  passage 
(vi.  9),  "Like  the  waylayers  of  men."  Cf.  also  the  expression, 
"Like  the  dew  that  early  goeth  away"  (vi.  4).  Such  a  usage 
as  this,  I  think,  guarantees  the  reading  when  there  is  no 
external  evidence  against  it,  and  the  expression,  moreover, 
read  as  it  stands,  fits  the  context  better  than  the  reading  pro- 
posed. See  Robertson  Smith's  discussion  of  the  passage, 
Prophets,  p.  405  f. 

Note  XXVI.  vol.  ii.  p.  132. — Not  only  is  it  the  case  that  the 
dates  of  the  "sources  "  are  variously  given  by  various  critics,  and 
that  two  at  least  of  the  sources  (J  and  E)  present  a  hitherto  insolu- 
ble problem,  but  it  is  plain  that  critics  like  Dillmanu  and  Noldeke 
have  come  to  very  different  conclusions  as  to  the  development 
of  the  history  from  tlie  school  of  Wellhausen  and  Kuenen.  Quite 
recently,  too,  we  have  had  Klostermann  putting  forward  a  revo- 


278  Notes.  ^ 

lutioiiary  view  as  to  the  original  documents  (Xeue  Kirkl. 
Zeitaclir.,  i.  618  ff.,  693  ff.  Compare  Presbyterian  and  Reformed 
Review,  April  1891).  And  not  to  speak  of  the  small  school 
represented  by  M.  Vernes,  the  articles  of  Halevy  appearing  in 
the  '  Revue  des  Etudes  Juives '  show  that  he  is  far  from  accept- 
ing the  current  conclusions  of  criticism.  If  it  should  come  to  be 
accepted— as  the  discoveries  of  architology  and  the  failures  of 
criticism  seem  to  indicate  that  it  will— that  literary  activity 
was  much  older  and  more  common  in  Israel  than  is  now  admit- 
ted, we  shall  probably  the  better  understand  how,  side  by  side 
with  the  growth  and  modification  of  religious  observances,  there 
went  on  a  rewriting  and  modification  of  books;  which  is,  on  all 
points  of  view,  a  more  likely  thing  than  the  supposition  of  lit- 
erature produced  in  the  mass  for  certain  specific  temporary  pur- 
l)oses.  As  to  the  dating  very  far  apart  of  documents  that  now 
lie  side  by  side,  the  critics  themselves  see  no  incongruity  in  two 
contemporaneous  prophets,  Amos  and  Hosea,  the  one  saying 
nothing  against  the  calves,  and  the  other  making  them  the  very 
root  of  Israel's  sin  (R.  Smith,  Prophets,  p.  175).  Nay,  they  find 
in  the  person  of  Jeremiah  two  tendencies  on  this  subject  of  law 
that  are  quite  contradictory  (see  chap.  xvii.  p.  451).  I  will 
venture  to  add  that  the  mode  of  composition,  and  transition  from 
one  style  to  another  seen  frequently  in  oriental  authors,  should 
be  a  warning  not  to  push  the  "  separation  of  sources  "  too  far. 
Lane  incidentally  (Modern  Egyi)tians,  5th  ed.,  vol.  i.  p.  271  f.) 
furnishes  an  example,  which  could  be  paralleled  by  quotations 
from  almost  any  Arabic  author.  He  gives  a  long  passage  taken 
down  to  the  dictation  of  his  informant,  and  relating  a  vision  of 
the  prophet  which  was  given  to  one  Mohammed  el-Bahaee  to 
s(»ttle  a  diMicult  matter  of  tradition.  The  narrator  first  relates 
his  vision,  apparently  in  fullest  detail,  till  he  "awoke  from  sleep 
joyful  and  happy."  He  then  goes  on  to  tell  how  he  visited  his 
teacher  to  rcjiort  the  occurrence,  and  in  this  relation  brings  in 
quite  a  new  sot  of  details  that  were  not  hinted  at  in  the  first 
narrative.  The  two  accounts  show  so  much  variety  that  they 
could  easily  be  ascribed  to  difierent  writers,  and  it  would  be 
very  easy  to  make  out  that  the  latter  is  very  much  later  than  the 
former.     Rut.  iiidccd.  ihc  K(»ran  itself,   uniform  as  it  is  above 


Notes.  2"  9 

most  Arab  work?,  exliil)it3  ([uito  a  miniber  of  styles  and  not  a 
few  divergent  tendencies. 

Note  XXVII.  vol.  ii.  p.  157. — A  few  words  may  here  be  said  on 
the  view  of  Wellhausen  and  his  school  that  ••  the  kingdom  wjjich 
bore  the  name  of  Israel  was  actually  in  point  of  fact  in  the  olden 
time  the  proper  Israel,  and  Judah  was  merely  a  kind  of  append- 
age to  it  "  (Hist,  of  Israel,  p.  188).  Robertson  Sniith  of  course  re- 
peats the  statement,  €ven  to  the  corroborative  proof  of  the  cedar 
of  Lebanon  overshadowing  the  thistle  that  grows  at  its  foot  (2 
Kings  xiv.  9;  Prophets,  pp.  93,  137).  The  remark  might  be  al- 
lowed to  pass  if  it  referred  merely  to  political  importance,  lor 
the  northern  kingdom  was  larger  and  nearer  to  the  great  powers 
that  moulded  history  in  those  days.  Yet  happy  is  the  people 
that  has  no  history.  The  dynastic  changes  and  internal  troubles 
of  the  northern  kingdom  are  in  strange  contrast  with  the  long 
quiet  reigns  of  the  southern  kingdom ;  and  from  this  point  of 
view  the  sweeping  statement  of  Wellhausen  is  a  priori  improb- 
able—.viz.,  that  "religiously  the  relative  importance  of  the  two 
corresponded  pretty  nearly  to  what  it  was  politically  and  histor- 
ically." Israel,  he  says,  "was  the  cradle  of  prophecy;  Samuel, 
Elijah,  and  Elisha  exercised  their  activity  there.  What  contem- 
porary figure  from  Judah  is  there  to  place  alongside  of  these? " 
Why,  Samuel  belongs  to  the  undivided  kingdom,  a  proof,  even 
if  we  had  not  stronger  ones,  that  the  cradle  of  prophecy  is  not 
to  be  located  on  geographical  considerations.  And  who  were 
Nathan  and  Gad;  and  where  did  Amos  come  from?  Isaiah 
himself  cannot  be  a  sudden  apparition  in  Judah.  The  quiet  of 
the  little  southern  state,  the  prestige  of  Jerusalem,  the  disposi- 
tion to  rest  on  the  past,  all  speak  for  Jerusalem  as  the  centre  of 
religious  life,  and  for  the  Davidic  house  as,  in  religious  regard, 
something  quite  different  from  the  northern  kingdom.  Pales- 
tine is  not  so  large,  nor  were  the  boundaries  of  the  two  kingdoms 
so  firmly  set  by  nature,  that  the  mere  distance  of  a  few  miles 
could  make  much  diflTerence  in  the  social  and  religious  condition 
of  the  people.  Yet  the  tone  of  the  northern  prophets,  who  seem 
to  have  had  before  them  a  worship  full  of  idolatry,  differs  so 
much  from  that  of  the  prophets  of  the  south,  who  rejirove  the 


"280  Notes. 

Doople  for  too  much  attention  to  forms,  that  we  must  recognise 
a  (litfereuce  in  the  religious  associations  and  standing  of  the  two 
kingdoms. 

Note  XXVIII.  vol.  ii.  p.  181.— In  Cheyne's  Jeremiah,  His  Life 
and  Times,  pp.  69-86,  the  English  reader  will  find  in  an  accessible 
and  comprehensive  form  a  statement  of  the  main  critical  posi- 
tions in  regard  to  the  date  and  authorship  of  Deuteronomy.  It 
does  not  fall  within  the  scope  of  the  present  work  to  enter  into 
critical  questions  as  to  the  composition  of  books,  and  I  have 
stated  my  reasons  for  believing  that  the  Biblical  theory  of  the 
history  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  supposition  of  a  late  date  for 
the  book  of  Deuteronomy.  A  good  many  of  the  statements  of 
Professor  Cheyne  are,  I  think,  quite  controvertible ;  but  I  can 
only  refer  briefly  to  one  or  two  points  bearing  on  the  theory  of 
the  history.  For  instance,  he  does  not  seem  to  take  any  ac- 
count of  the  possibility  of  one  in  Moses'  position  foreseeing  (in 
the  ordinary  and  literal  sense  or  the  word)  what  was  most  likely 
to  happen  after  the  occupation  of  Canaan.  And  when  he  tells 
us  that  the  author  of  Deuteronomy  "is  full  of  allusions  to  cir- 
cumstances which  did  not  exist  till  long  after  Moses  "  (p.  71), 
and,  guided  by  such  allusions,  brings  the  date  later  and  later 
down  till  he  reaches  the  age  of  Manasseh  or  Josiah,  he  some- 
what invalidates  his  own  argument  by  adding  that,  after  the 
promulgation  of  Deuteronomy,  "even  very  near  Jerusalem  the 
reformation  was  but  slight "  (p.  73).  For  it  is  always  open  to 
the  objector  to  argue  that,  if  breaches  of  the  law  are  found  after 
the  solemn  national  adoption  of  it,  the  earlier  "circumstances" 
alluded  to  are  no  proof  that,  at  the  time  of  their  occurrence, 
s\ich  a  law  had  not  been  promulgated.  What  I  particularly  dis- 
pute, however,  is  the  statement  that  the  fundamental  idea  of 
the  holy  people  is  Isaiah's,  and  that  "  it  was  that  great  prophet's 
function  to  transfer  the  conception  of  holiness  from  the  physical 
to  the  moral  sphere  "  (p.  73).  Such  a  statement,  even  with  the 
qualification  added  to  it  that  "others  had  laboured  in  the  same 
direction,"  is  to  my  mind  altogether  inadequate,  in  view  of  the 
writings  of  Amos  and  Hosea.  tlie  book  of  the  Covenant,  and  any- 
thing that  can  at  all  be  ascribed  to  Moses  himself.     Whether 


Notes.  28  i 

the  word  be  there  or  not,  the  idea  of  a  people  separated  from 
other  nations  in  belief  and  practice,  and  constituted  as  a  people 
on  an  ethical  basis,  is  fundamental  and  Mosaic ;  and  it  is  only 
on  such  a  supposition  that  it  can  be  asserted  with  any  proper 
significance  that  Deuteronomy  is  in  spirit  Mosaic.  But,  indeed, 
is  it  not  conceivable  that  this  Deuteronomic  spirit  was  a  thing 
of  development  and  growth,  having  its  germ  in  the  Mosaic  re- 
ligion, and,  instead  of  appearing  for  the  first  time  in  one  late 
age,  coming  to  maturity  in  the  course  of  the  history?  In  other 
words,  instead  of  saying  that  Deuteronomy  speaks  as  its  authors 
supposed  Moses  would  have  spoken  had  he  been  alive,  and 
that  it  abolished  things  which  Moses  might  have  tolerated  in 
his  own  day,  but  would  have  condemned  had  he  lived  later  (p. 
78  f.),  I  think  we  get  a  more  reasonable  view  of  the  matter  if 
we  suppose  that  it  is  the  final  expression,  in  the  light  of  history, 
of  views  that  had  been  germinating  in  the  minds  of  good  men 
from  the  days  of  Moses,  the  exposition  of  principles  so  firmly 
rooted  in  their  minds  that  the  writers  in  all  sincerity  regarded 
them  as  Mosaic.  It  is  one  thing  to  ascribe  to  early  times  an  in- 
stitution which  exists  and  has  long  existed,  or  an  idea  or  tone 
of  thought  which  is  well  defined  and  deeply  rooted;  it  is  not  so 
easy  to  conceive  of  this  being  done  with  institutions  newly  set 
up,  or  ideas  for  the  first  time  formulated.  This  distinction 
would,  I  think,  help  materially  to  explain  the  success  of  Josiah's 
reformation,  as  it  w^ould  also  remove  the  necessity  for  the  as- 
cription of  any  fraud  or  delusion,  or  even  illusion,  to  those  wdio 
were  its  prominent  agents.  I  believe  it  would  also  explain  the 
Deuteronomic  colouring,  as  it  is  called,  which  is  found  in  other 
books.  Cheyne  speaks  of  "the  school  of  writers  formed  upon 
the  book  of  Deuteronomy — a  school  which  includes  historians, 
poets,  and  prophets,  and  without  which  the  Old  Testament 
would  be  deprived  of  some  of  its  most  valued  pages  "  (p.  68).  It 
is  not  so  very  obvious  how  a*  school  could  be  formed  upon  a 
book.  A  book  issuing  from  a  school  is  at  least  as  conceivable ; 
and  the  fact  that  the  school  embraced  "historians,  poets,  and 
prophets,"  would  lead  us  to  suppose  that  it  was  of  more  gradual 
growth,  under  influences  wider  and  more  fundamental  than  a 
book.     Even  if  we  explain  the  school  by  the  existence  of  the 


282  Notes. 

book,  the  hook  itself  has  to  be  accounted  for,  with  characteris- 
tics sufticieut  to  give  rise  to  a  school. 

Note  XXIX.  vol.  ii.  p.  187.— The  linguistic  comparison  of  the 
various  books  or  sources  lies  quite  beyond  the  subject  which  I  set 
before  myself;  and  I  have  already  indicated  my  doubts  whether 
this  kind  of  argument  goes  very  far  to  determine  the  actual 
dates  of  the  compositions,  much  less  to  determine  the  order  of 
historical  events.  The  student  will  find  the  linguistic  veculiari- 
ties  of  the  Hexateuch  fully  stated  in  Dillmann's  Commentaries 
on  those  books,  and  in  his  summary  statement,  '  Ueber  die 
Composition  des  Hexateuch'  at  the  close  of  the  series.  De- 
lltzsch's  new  Commentary  on  Genesis  also  takes  note  of  them; 
and  of  course,  in  Kuenen's  Hexateuch,  they  are  produced  in  de- 
tail. A  special  work  on  the  subject  is  Ryssel's  '  De  Elohistae 
Pentateuchici  Sermone '  (1878),  which  is  criticised  by  Kayser  in 
'  Jahrb.  ftir  Prot.  Theol.,'  1881.  Riehm  treated  the  subject  also 
in  'Stud.  u.  Krit.,'  1872,  and  is  criticised  by  Wellhausen  in 
Bleak's  '  Einleituug,' 4te  Aufl.,  p.  173  ff.  There  is  a  discussion 
by  Klostermann  of  the  relation  of  Ezekiel  to  the  law  of  holi- 
ness (Levit.  xviii.-xxvi.)  in  'Zeitschr.  fiir  luth.  Theol.,'  1877. 
Strack  gives  a  brief  statement  of  a  conservative  view  in  Zock- 
ler's  '  Ilandbuch '  (1883),  vol.  i.  p.  138  fl'. ;  and  Giesebrecht  has 
an  important  discussion  of  the  subject  (Die  Sprachgebrauch  des 
hexat.  Elohisten)  in  Stade's  Zeitschr.  fiir  Alttest.  Wissensch.,' 
1881.  Ryssel,  who  has  been  much  criticised,  concludes  that  it 
cannot  be  asserted  that  the  Elohist  is  later  in  date  than  the  exile. 
Bredenkamp,  while  laying  less  stress  on  the  linguistic  argument, 
comes  also  to  the  conclusion  that  no  part  of  the  Elohistic  Torah 
was  produced  in  the  period  of  the  language  succeeding  Malachi ; 
and  he  points  out,  in  particular,  the  contrasts  it  i)resent3  to  the 
language  of  Ezekiel  (Gesetz.  u.  Propli. ,  p.  17).  F.  E.  Konig, 
to  whom  I  luive  acknowledged  my  indebtedness  in  these  pages, 
has  a  special  treatise,  '  De  criticic  sacra?  argumento  e  linguai 
legibus  repetito  '  (1879);  and  he  gives  also  a  very  comprehensive 
statement  of  the  whole  question  as  to  the  order  and  relation  of 
the  various  documents  in  his  '  OtTenbarungsbegriff  des  Alten 
Testaments'  (1882),  vol.  ii.  p.  321  ff.     He  declares  himself  an 


Notes.  283 

adherent  of  the  view  of  Reuss  and  Graf  that  tlie  Priestly  Code 
is  later  than  Ezekiel ;  yet  he  strenuously  asserts  that  the  histori- 
cal order,  law  and  prophets,  is  to  be  maintained,  and  says  that 
the  Grafian  hypothesis  does  not  involve  a  denial  of  this  order. 
His  own  position  is  that  Moses  received  a  veritably  supernatural 
revelation,  that  through  him  God  brought  Israel  in  a  miraculous 
manner  out  of  Egypt,  and  concluded  a  covenant  with  Israel  at 
Sinai,  where  the  foundations  were  laid  of  Israel's  ordinances  for 
religion,  morals,  worship,  and  daily  life  (p.  333).  As  to  the  ex- 
tent to  which  Konig  diflfers  from  the  prevailing  school,  it  may 
be  mentioned  that  he  defends  the  Mosaic  origin  of  the  taber- 
nacle (ibid.),  and  holds  that  the  absence  of  mention  of  the 
Great  Day  of  Atonement  in  Nehemiah  is  no  proof  that  the  law 
relating  to  that  institution  was  not  then  known  (p.  331).  The 
laws  relating  to  worship  which  he  regards  as  belonging  to  the 
original  Mosaic  legislation  are,  besides  the  prohibition  of  images 
and  the  Sabbath  law  (which  are  in  the  Decalogue  itself) :  the 
erection  of  altars  wherever  God  recorded  His  name,  along  with 
which,  however,  the  tent  or  tabernacle  as  chief  sanctuary;  a 
priestly  tribe  of  Levi,  with  high  priest  at  its  head;  offerings  of 
animals  and  fruits,  as  burnt-offerings  and  thank-offerings;  the 
Sabbath;  new  moon;  three  collective  festivals,  &c.  (p.  347).  It 
is  but  just  to  a  careful  worker  like  Konig  to  present  this  enumera- 
tion (and  the  "  &c.  "  is  added  by  himself) ;  for  the  conclusion  in- 
volved in  regard  to  the  history  and  the  credibility  of  the  docu- 
ments differs  widely  from  that  of  most  of  the  critical  writers 
whose  views  we  have  considered.  It  might  be  suggested  that  if 
Konig  is  willing  to  believe  in  the  antiquity  of  some  institutions  in 
regard  to  which  the  history  is  silent,  he  might  have  been  content 
to  accept  the  statements  of  the  priestly  writers  as  to  others.  At 
all  events,  if  all  the  institutions  he  mentions  are  Mosaic,  it  is 
evident  that  an  equally  ancient  terminology  and  diction  must 
have  existed  (in  priestly  circles  at  least)  in  regard  to  them.  But, 
as  I  have  already  indicated,  1  cannot  profess  to  have  arrived  at 
any  certainty  on  such  matters,  and  therefore  do  not  hazard  con- 
jecture on  the  subject. 

Note  XXX.  vol.  ii.  p.  189.— One  or  two  instances  of  this  style 


284  Notes. 

of  proof  ma}'  be  given — it  is  evident  that  it  may  he  carried  to 
any  length:  {a)  The  cities  of  refuge  are  not  of  early  institution, 
but  the  law  in  regard  to  them  arose  out  of  the  old  Bamoth. 
That  is  to  say,  an  altar  used  to  be  a  place  of  asylum,  but  when 
a  multiplicity  of  altars  was  abolished  something  had  to  come 
in  their  place.  (See  Well.,  Hist.,  pp.  161-163.)  Places  thus  set 
apart  formed  the  germ  of  the  idea  of  Levitical  cities,  and  the 
compilers  of  the  Priestly  Code  went  on  in  their  usual  way  to 
trace  them  back  to  Moses,  imagining  a  condition  of  things 
neither  known  nor  workable  in  their  own  days,  {b)  In  Deut. 
there  are  references  to  the  monarchy,  but  none  in  the  Priestly 
Code,  The  conclusion  that  used  to  be  drawn  was  that  the 
Priestly  Code  was  older  than  the  monarchy.  On  Wellhausen's 
theory,  however,  that  the  historical  sphere  of  the  Priestly  Code 
is  one  "  created  by  itself  out  of  its  own  legal  premises  "  (p.  39), 
the  silence  as  to  a  king  is  explicable  by  the  fact  that  it  belongs 
to  a  time  when  the  monarchy  had  disappeared,  and  the  high 
priest  was  the  chief  magistrate.  The  so-called  theocracy  of  the 
pre-monarchical  period  is  just,  in  short,  a  reading  backward 
into  history  of  the  hierocracy  of  post-exilian  times — p.  148  ff. 
(c)  According  to  Exod.  xxx.  the  expenses  of  the  Temple  worship 
are  met  directly  out  of  the  poll-lax  levied  from  the  community, 
which  can  only  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  at  that  time  there 
had  ceased  to  be  any  sovereign — p.  80.  {h)  "  One  might  per- 
liaps  hazard  the  conjecture  that  if  in  the  wilderness  legislation 
of  the  [Levitical]  Code  there  is  no  trace  of  agriculture  being  re- 
garded as  the  basis  of  life,  which  it  still  is  in  Deut.  and  even  in 
the  kernel  of  Levit.  xvii.-xxvi.,  this  also  is  ai)roof  that  the  Code 
belongs  to  a  very  recent  rather  than  to  a  very  early  period,  when 
agriculture  was  no  longer  rather  than  not  yet.  With  the  Baby- 
lonian captivity  the  Jews  lost  their  fixed  seats,  and  so  became  a 
trading  people" — p.  108. 

Note  XXXI.  vol.  i.  p.  224.— I  have  purposely  avoided  making 
any  reference  to  the  book  of  Joel,  although  much  might  be  said  in 
favour  of  its  i)re-exilic  and  early  date.  I  will  not  say  that  it  is 
on  account  of  their  theory  of  the  late  origin  of  the  Priestly 
Code  that  most  of  the  modern  critics  relegate  this  book  to  post- 


Notes.  286 

exilic  times,  or  even  that  the  tlieory  in  question,  taken  strictly, 
requires  this.  Yet,  seeing  that  the  date  of  the  l)ook  is  so  much 
disputed,  and  that  so  much,  it  anything  at  all,  would  have  to  be 
said  on  the  subject,  I  prefer  to  leave  it  altogether  out  of  ac- 
count, as  I  have  practically  done  in  regard  to  the  Psalter. 

Note  XXXII.  vol.  ii.  p.  227.— It  may  be  thought  that  I  have 
given  more  importance  than  their  views  demand  to  the  small 
school  represented  by  M.  Vernes,  and  also  that  the  extreme  posi- 
tions of  Daumer  and  Ghillany  are  not  worthy  of  consideration  at 
the  present  time.  It  is,  however,  to  be  noted  that  many  of  the 
views  of  these  older  writers  are  put  forth  by  modern  critics,  and 
on  the  same  grounds ;  and  it  is  but  fair  to  M.  Vernes  to  say  that 
his  chief  objection  to  the  prevailing  school  is  that  their  method 
is  insufficient.  He  professes  to  carry  out  to  their  legitimate 
conclusion  the  principles  on  which  they  proceed ;  and  if,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  the  critical  "circles"  to  which  Wellhausen  refers 
(Hist.,  p.  9)  are  concentric,  we  are  entitled  to  look  at  the  oper- 
ation of  central  principles.  It  may  not  be  agreeable  to  the 
prevailing  school  to  be  called  traditionalists ;  yet  M.  Vernes  has 
some  right  to  ask,  if  the  recollection  of  the  period  immediately 
preceding  Saul  and  David  has  almost  completely  disappeared, 
how^  any  one  can  be  justified  in  going  back  centuries  beyond 
that  dim  period,  and  talking  of  migrations  of  pre-Abrahamic 
peoples  and  suchlike  matters  which  are  shrouded  in  impenetra- 
ble darkness  (Resultats,  &c.,  p.  42  f.)  So  it  seems  to  me  he  is 
only  carrying  out  the  principles  of  the  prevailing  school  when 
he  points  out  tliat  the  (so-called)  pre-exilic  prophets  have  the 
exile,  the  restoration,  and  the  spread  of  religion  among  the 
heathen  so  clearly  in  their  view,  that  the  books  must  have  been 
written  after  these  events  had  happened  or  become  possible  (p. 
213  ff.)  Scepticism  must  always  be  prepared  to  meet  scepticism ; 
and  when  critics  triumphantly  tell  us  that  Amos  declares  that 
the  Israelites  did  not  sacrifice  in  the  wilderness,  and  Jeremiah 
informs  us  distinctly  that  God  never  commanded  sacrifice,  and 
therefore  the  controversy  as  to  the  early  legislation  on  that 
subject  is  ended,  it  is  always  open  to  the  objector  to  ask  what 
information  Amos  or  Jeremiah  had  about  times  so  remote  that 


286  Notes. 

was  not  v^osscssod  bj'  their  coiitomporaries.  Again.  Daumer 
claims  to  be  consistent  and  thorough ;  for  he  not  only  proves 
the  original  tire  and  Moloch  worship  of  Israel  from  tiie  same 
texts  that  Kueueu  relies  upon,  but  concludes,  from  a  i)'issage 
of  similar  tenor  in  Jeremiah  (xlvi.  10;  comp.  Isa.  xxxiv.  «>  rt.j, 
that  this  was  to  the  last  a  recognised  legal  service  (Feuer  und 
Molochdienst.  p.  25).  Not  without  reason  M.  Vernes  says  (Pref., 
p.  iiij,  "If  erudition  is  an  excellent  and  indispensable  thing,  it 
cannot  take  the  place  of  method.  "  Prof.  Briggs  tells  us  that 
"  higher  criticism  is  exact  and  thorough  in  its  methods  "  (Bib. 
Study,  J).  194).  I  can  perceive  the  thoroughness;  the  exactness 
is  not  so  apparent. 


INDEX. 


Abir,  Abbir,  i.  210,  245. 

Abraham,  i.  27,  ii.  240 — a  "free 
creation,"  i.  139,  ii.  264 — his 
offering  of  Isaac,  i.  282 — inter 
cession  for  Sodom,  i.  284. 

Adou,  i.  192,  209,  271. 

Agag,   i.  292. 

Agriculture  learned  from  Canaan- 
ites,  ii.  Ill — basis  of  feasts,  ii. 
114  ff.,  120  ft'.,  153. 

Allah,  i.  195,  ii.  44. 

Alluvial  deposit  on  tradition,  i. 
159. 

Alphabet,  i.  86. 

Altar,  horns  of,  i.  254 — in  Egypt, 
i.  265— one,  ii.  164  ff. 

Amos,  i.  58,  61  f.— style,  i.  64,  68, 
74 — and  the  prophets,  i.  95, 
100,  172— and  local  cult,  i.  238 
— and  the  calves,  i.  254 — and 
the  wilderness  period,  1.  288  f., 
ii.  271  f. — geographical  knowl 
edge,  ii.  274. 

Ancestors,  mythical,  i.  143 — na- 
tional, i.   145 — worship,  i.  225. 

Animism,  i.  222,  236  ff. 

Anthropomorphisms,  ii.  32. 

Apis,  i.  210,  243  f. 


Apostasy   of    Israel,    i.    31,    126, 

180. 
Appellative   names,   i.   191,    202, 

205,  ii.  273. 
Ark,    sacred,    i.    227 — abode   of 

deity,  i.  248— its  place,  i.  250— 

in  time  of  Judges,  ii.  91  f. 
Asherim,  i.  262. 
Assyrian    polytheism,    i.    203  — 

bulls,  i.  245— period,  ii.  57  ff. 
Astarte,  i.  197,  241,  ii.  37. 
Astuads,  ii.  5. 
Atonement,  Day  of,  ii.  148. 

Baal,   Baalim,   i.    190  ff.,   253,  ii. 

19,  44,  265  f. 
Babylonian  deities,  i.  198  ff.,  202 

ff. — influence  on    Palestine,   i. 

204. 
Bamoth.     See  High  places. 
Bannockburn,  i.  133,  150. 
Basket  of  fruits,  ii.  116. 
Bedawin    songs,    i.    88  —  tribes, 

i.  231. 
Belief  and  practice,  i.  179,  ii.  70. 
Bona  fides,  i.  53,  ii.  178,  192. 
Books  of  Old  Testament,    i.   42, 

47  ff.,  119  f.,  154,  159f.,ii.  75f. 


288 


Index. 


Calf  worship,  i.  240  IT. 
Caiiaanite  iDtmina,  i.  223, 
Canonical  writings,  i.  155. 
Caricature,  i.  97,  99. 
Carlyle  and  St.   Edmund,  i.  115, 

U7. 
Centralization  of  worship,  ii,  G9, 

111,  118  ff.,  205. 
Character  of  Jahaveh,  ii.  37,  45, 

50,  59,  62  ff. 
Chemosh,  i.  171,  271,  ii.  38,  42. 
Cherubim,  i.  248. 
Chronicles,  book  of,   i.  30,   103, 

158,  ii.  153. 
Circumcision,  i.  278,  ii.  78. 
Clean  and  unclean,  ii.  93. 
Codes,    Coditication,   ii.    132   ff., 

138,  141,  145. 
Commandment,  First,  ii.  42. 
"Congregation,"  ii.  163. 
Contemporary  writings,  i.  50,  56  f. 
Copyright,  ii.  238. 
Covenant,  the,  i.  27,  31,  127,  ii. 

53,  82  f.,  161,  209  f.,  273  f. 
Covenant,  book  of,  i.  59,   69,  ii. 

75,  96,   105,   117,  122,  127,  132, 

137,  139  ff.,  199,  211,  213— and 

place  of  worship,  ii.  159  ff. 
Cru.saders  and  topography,  i.  109. 
Cumulative  evidence,  i.  293. 

Dada,  Dodo,  &c.,  1.  198  ff.,  202. 

Dan  worship,  i.  260,  ii.  92. 

David,  his  times,  i.  90 — serving 
other  gods,  i.  218 — and  music, 
i.  104,  ii.  270  f.— ephod,  i.  261 
his  house,  i.  124  f.,  163. 

Dawn  myth,  ii.  268  II'. 


Deborah's  song,  i.  68,  131  f.,  149, 

215,  236. 
Decalogue,    i.   77,   247  f,,    ii,    79, 

ii.  163. 
Dervishes,  i.  99. 
Deuteronomic  Code,  i.  157,  ii.  75, 

132,  137,  143,  150,  179,  219. 
Deuteronomy,  i.  218   ff.,  ii.   170, 

172  ff.,  280  f. 
Development,   i.  37,   176,  295,  ii. 

31,   40    f.,   67,   78,    156,  178  f., 

230,  240  ff.— prophetic,  i.  161,  ii. 

60. 
Discipline,  Book  of,  ii.  81  f. 
Discolouring  of  history,  i.  33,  35, 

43,  102,  129  f.,    164,  175.     See 

Alluvial,  Redaction. 
Discredited  testimony,  i.  166,  ii. 

41,  60,  92,  225. 
Documents,  private,  ii.  239.     See 

Sources. 
Dreams,  i.  234. 

"Earlier    prophets,"    books    so 

named,  i.  107. 
Ebal  and  Gerizim,  ii.  162. 
Ecclesiastes,  ii.  173  f. 
Education  in  Israel,  i.  83. 
Egypt,   altar  in,  i.  264 — civilisa- 
tion  and   ritual,   ii.   79 — Israel 

in,  ii.  24,  275  f. 
El,   i.   210,   271,  ii.  14,  19— Elim, 

i.  227,  ii,  21,  26. 
Elegy,  i.  69. 
Elijah,  i,  59,   67 — and    prophets, 

i,  94,   172— and  calves,  i.  251  f. 

—at  Sarepta,  ii.  28— at  Carmel, 

i.  110,  ii.  44. 


Index. 


289 


Elisha,  i.  59,   67 — and  prophets, 

i.  93  f. — and  calves,  i.  251. 
Elohim,  i.   193,    271,  ii.  221,  265. 
Elyon,  i.  271. 
Ephod,  i.  256  ff.,  266  fl. 
EshmuD,  i.  197,  208. 
Ethic  monotheism,  i.  173,  ii.  40  ff., 

ii.  55,  161.    See  Character. 
Evil  ascribed  to  God,  ii.  30. 
Exile,  the,  ii.  183,  187. 
Exodus,   the,  i.  85,    122  f.,   216, 

242,  ii.  25,  125  f.,  128. 
Ezekiel,  i.  223,  232,  242,  ii.  79, 

133,  148  f.,  181,  184  ff.,  208. 
Ezra,  ii.  131,  134,  149,  188,  214, 

242. 

Feasts,  cycle,  ii.  121  ff.,  153  — 
historical  reference,  ii.  123.  See 
Agriculture. 

Fetishism,  i.  189,  222,  235  ff. 

Fiction,  legal,  ii.  173 — historical, 
177,  189  ff.,  227  f. 

Fire-worship,  i.  269  ff. 

First-born,  i.  278  ff. 

Fountains,  sacred,  i.  225. 

Genealogies,  i.  89,  138  ff.,  ii.  262. 
Gibeonites,  i.  292. 
Gideon's  ephod,  i.  257  f. 
Grace  as  a  divine  attribute,  ii.  65, 
Graf,  ii.  146,  167  f.,  170  ff.,  224. 

Iladad,  i.  198. 
llaggai,  ii.  109,  188,  217. 
Heine  and  Kenan,  ii.  256. 
Ilezekiah's  reform,  i.  263  f.,    ii. 
118,  214. 


High  places,  i.  224,  276,  ii.  155  ff.. 
206. 

History  not  annals,  i.  39 — in  guise 
of  legend,  i.  137  —  study  of, 
i.  102  — writing  of,  i.  67  f.— 
periods  of,  i.  147 — and  archae- 
ology, i.  148.  See  Discolouring, 
Manufacture. 

Holiness  in  Jahaveh's  character, 
ii.  49  f.— law  of,  ii.  133— in  the 
law,  ii.  215. 

Homer  and  writing,  i.  71. 

Hosea,  i.  58,  63— style,  i.  64,  68, 
74,  ii.  277 — and  the  calves,  i. 
254 — and  written  law,  ii.  86  ff., 
143 — and  sacrifices,  ii.  88,  201 — 
and  history,  i.  165  f. 

Hosts,  Lord  of,  i.  203,  ii.  267  f. 

Image-worship,  i.  249  f.,  ii.  48. 

Indirect  speech,  ii.  176  ff. 

Inspiration,  ii.  250  f. 

Interpolations  in  Amos  and  Ho- 
sea, i.  165. 

Isaac,  legend  of,  i.  139. 

Isaiah  and  God's  dwelling-place, 
i.  238  f.— and  ritual,  ii.  198  f. 
— and  Bamoth,  ii.  206. 

Israel  and  Judah,  ii.  279. 

Jacob,  the  name,  i.  201— at  Bethel, 

i.  220. 
Jashar,  book  of,  i.  67  f.,  74,  90. 
Jau,  Babylonian  deity,  ii.  6. 
Jealousy,  divine,  ii.  36. 
Jehovah,  pronunciation  of,  i.  35 

—signification,  ii.  17  ff. 


290 


Index. 


Jephtliah.  i.  284  f.— and  Chemosh, 

ii.  42. 
Jeremiah  and  sacrifice,  ii.  203 — 

inconsistency,  ii.  207  f. 
Jeroboam's  calves,  i.  244. 
Joel,  book  of,  ii.  284. 
Job.  moon-god,  ii.  7  f. 
Joseph,  the  name,  i.  201  f. 
Josiah,  ii.  119,  160,  181,  202,  212. 
Joyousness  of   worship,   ii.   113, 

119  f. 
Judges,  book  of,  i.  59,  130,  ii.  "90 

—period,  i.  149  f.,  260,  ii.  90. 

Kenites,  ii.  10 
Kings,  books  of,  i.  58,  130. 
Konig,  F.  E.,  his  critical  position, 
ii.  282. 

Lang,  Andrew,  i.  3,  211. 

Language,  imperfection  of,  ii.  43 
f.— and  the  dates  of  documents, 
ii.  255  f.,  282. 

Law,  codes  and  books,  ii.  73 — 
moral  and  ceremonial,  ii.  215 — 
and  Gospel,  ii.  221.  See  Modi- 
fication, Torah. 

Legalism.     See  Prophets. 

Legend,  i.  137,  144  f. 

Levites,  ii.  94  f.,  107,  209. 

Levitical  Code,  ii.  90,  108,  132, 
136  f.,  143,  170,  181  fi".,  191. 
See  Priestly. 

Literary  age,  i.  67,  69  f. 

Literature,  early,  i.  17 — specified, 
i.  59 — characterised,  i.  63  fl. — 
of  India,  i.  88. 

Localising  of  Deity,  i.  230,  233. 

Love,  divine,  ii.  64. 


Ma99ebas,  i,  226,  262. 

Malachi,  ii.  109,  217. 

Manufacture  of  history,  ii.  190. 
284  f. 

Mazzoth,  ii.  127  f. 

Memory,  feats  of,  i.  89. 

Messianic  idea,  i.  129,  ii.  261. 

Metaphorical  language,  i.  211  fl"., 
231  f.,  237,  274,  295. 

Micah  and  images,  i.  264 — and 
ofl"erings,  i.  290  f.,  ii.  201. 

Micah's  ephod,  i.  258  f. 

Might,  divine,  ii.  45. 

Missions,  modern,  i.  72  f. 

Moabite  king,  i.  286  f.,  ii.  39- 
stone,  i.  199. 

Modification  of  laws  and  institu- 
tions, ii.  134  fl'.,  178,  192  fl". 

Mohammedanism,  i.  19  f.,  37,  ii. 
71,  228,  245. 

Moloch,  i,  171,  199,  209,  269  fl"., 
ii.  19,  39. 

Monolatry  and  Monotheism,  ii.  40, 
273  f. 

Monotheism,  nascent,  ii.  61  f.— 
and  unity  of  worship,  ii.  70. 
See  Ethic. 

Montenegrin  songs,  i.  87. 

Mosaism,  i.  177,  246,  ii.  258  f. 

Moses,  the  name,  i.  246 — and  Ja- 
haveh's  character,  ii.  38  f.,  66 
— laws  ascribed  to,  ii.  78  fl'. — 
his  times,  ii.  80,  258— little 
mentioned,  ii.  95  f. — deciding 
cases,  ii.  105 — his  grandson,  i. 
261,  ii.  92. 

Mythology,  i.  209,  ii.  37,  268  fl". 
See  Legend. 


Index. 


291 


Nature  feasts,  ii.  72,  ii.  110 — God, 

i.  234. 
Nazirites,  i.  78,  126. 
Nebiim,  i.  96,  99,  172,  ii.  111. 
Nebo,  i.  198,  201. 
Nebular  hypothesis  of  history,   i. 

147. 
Newman,  F.  W.,  ii.  245. 
Nomad  life,  i.  141. 
Nukini  nuk,  ii.  9. 
Numina,  i.  223,  271,  ii.  44. 

Observances,  religious,  i.  119  f. — 

significance,  ii.  71,  216. 
Omnipotence  and  omnipresence, 

ii.  29,  162. 
Omri,  house  of,  i.  90,  ii.  275. 
Oral    transmission,    i.    88.      See 

Torah. 
Oratory   and  literary  activity,  i. 

69. 

Palestine,  i.  12— exploration,  i. 
109,  113— Jahaveh's  house,  i. 
217,  ii.  115. 

Passover,  ii.  126  AT.,  134,  153. 

Patriarchal  stories,  i.  59,  67, 115  f., 
134  fT.,  229  f.— religion,  ii.  24— 
worship,  ii.  158. 

Paul,  St.,  and  law,  ii.  84. 

Pentateuch,  traditional  author- 
ship, i.  47  ff.,  ii.  131 — anony- 
mous, ii.  75 — legislation,  ii.  130 
ff. — criticism,  ii.  136  f. — narra- 
tives, ii.  169  ff. 

Pentaur,  poem,  i.  85. 

Pesach,  ii.  127  f. 

Philistine  wars,  i.  104,  227,  ii.  56. 


Philosophy  of  history,  i.  129. 

Phraseology,  religious,  i.  72,  75  f. 

Political  events,  ii.  55  f. 

Polytheism  in  Israel,  i.  188,  ii.  41. 

Popular  religion,  i.  180,  ii.  51. 
See  Prophetic. 

Praxis,  ii.  108,  150  flf.,  182,  197. 

Priestly  Code,  i.  ,158,  ii.  75,  119, 
124,  152  ff.,  164, 183.  See  Leviti- 
cal. 

Priests  as  educators,  i.  117 — act- 
ing with  prophets,  ii.  218. 

Primitive  peoples  and  concep- 
tions, i.  231,  239,  275,  ii.  243, 
247. 

Programme,  ii.  81,  150  f. 

Prophetic  and  pre-prophetic,  i. 
57,  80,  184,  189,  ii.  35— and 
popular,  i.  172,  177,  ii.  46  ff., 
54  ff.,  65,  211— development,  i. 
182. 

Prophets  referred  to  by  Amos  and 
Hosea,  i.  78 — background  of,  i. 
80— false,  i.  162  f.—"  schools  " 
of,  i.  92  ff. — literary  activity,  i. 
104 — guardians  of  tradition,  i. 
106 — destroyers  of  old  religion, 
ii.  50 — and  legalism,  ii.  204  ff., 
221 — acting  with  priests,  ii.  218. 

Psalms  and  law,  ii.  89 — and  criti- 
cism, ii.  233. 

Pseudonymous  literature,  ii.  173  ff 

Quotations.     See  References. 

Redaction,  i.  155-159. 
References  and  quotations,  i.  120, 
ii.  83  f. 


29: 


Index. 


Reformers  or  originators,  i.  75, 
78,  174— before  Josiah,  ii.  202. 

Religion  of  Israel,  i.  16, 17  f.,  23  f., 
26,  30— pre-Mosaic,  i.  230,  ii.  21 
—ideal  and  actual,  i.  179,  ii.  48 
— missionary,  i.  20 — universal, 
ii.  51— heart  of,  ii.  233— in  old 
Israel,  ii.  234.  See  Patriarchal, 
Popular,  Prophetic,  Prophets. 

Remnant,  the,  i.  129  f. 

Renan,  i.  171,  211,  220,  271,  ii. 
243,  252  f.,  256. 

Restoration,  the,  ii.  214.  See  Exile. 

Revelation,  ii.  219. 

Reviews  or  summaries,  i.  60,  130 
f.,  166. 

Rimmou,  i.  198. 

Roeh,  i.  97,  100.     See  Nebiim. 

Romance,  i.  140  f. 

Sabbath,  ii.  78,  147. 

Sacrifice,  ancient,  ii.  78 — human, 

see  First-born. 
Salmsezab,  i.  220,  ii.  39. 
Samuel,  i.  90,  92,  101,  ii.  202  f.— 

book  of,  i.  59,  ii.  90,  115. 
Sanctuaries,  local,  i.  222,  224,  ii. 

162— many,  ii.  156  fl". 
Saturn  worship,  i.  288. 
Saul,  name  of,  i.  200. 
Sclilt'itM-macher,  i.  37. 
Shaddai,  i.  271,  ii.  19. 
Shiloh,  ii.  91,  159,  164  f. 
Sifting  of  tradition,  i.  159,  ii.  225. 

See  Discolouring. 
Silence,  argument  from,  ii.  146. 
Sinai,  name,  i.    198,  201— God's 

dwelling,  i.  215. 


Socin  and  exploration,  i.  113  t. 
Solomon,   time   of,   i.    90  f. — the 

name,  i.  200,  204. 
Songs,  transmission  of,  i.  66  f.,  87. 
"Sources,''   i.  58,   ii.   259,  277— 

free  handling  of,  i.  228,  ii.  225. 
Speeches,  ii.  174.     See  Indirect. 
Statutes,  ii.  85  f.,  106,  109. 
Style  of  O.T.  narrative,  ii.  177. 
Stones,  sacred,  i.  226. 
Summaries.     See  Reviews. 
Sun  myth,  i.  208— god,  i.  273. 
Symbols  to  denote  writers,  i.  62, 

ii.  238  fir.,  259. 
Syncretism,  i.  194  f. 

Tabernacle,  i.  242,  ii.  161,  163  f., 
283. 

Tabernacles,  feast  of,  ii.  153. 

Talmud,  i.  26,  ii.  243,  258. 

Tell-el-Amarna,  i.  85,  88,  148. 

Temple,  the,  ii.  143,  152,  160, 165, 
181,  202. 

Teraphim,  i.  245,  266  f. 

Testimony  of  a  nation,  i.  79  f., 
121,  150,  ii.  15. 

Theophanies,  i.  224,  ii.  160. 

Theopneust,  i.  174,  ii.  54. 

Thoreau  on  history,  i.  40,  147. 

Thunder,  Thunderer,  i.  234,  ii. 
17  f.,  23  f.,  54. 

Topographical  accuracy,  i.  108  11". 

Torah,  ii.  85 — oral,  ii.  100— priest- 
ly and  prophetic,  i.  100  fl".,  196 
fl".— book  of,  ii.  167  fl".— Toroth, 
ii.  88,  142,  196. 

"  Traditional  "  view,  i.  38,  47  f.,  ii. 
131,  223,  257. 


Index, 


293 


Trees,  sacred,  i.  225. 

Tribes,  formation,  i.  225,  ii.  262  f. 

—Greek,     &c.,    i.    231— tribal 

god,  ii.  27.  • 
Tutelary  gods,  i.  218. 


Underground  criticism,  i.  4,   114, 

141. 
Urim  and  Thummim,  i.   244,    ii. 

102. 

Vassalage,  ii.  114  f. 
Vernes,  Maurice,  i.  112,  136,  142, 
168,  215,  ii.  148,  227,  285  f. 


Wars  of  Jahaveh,  book  of,  i.  67  f., 

74,  90,  ii.  37. 
Weeks,  feast  of,  ii.  153. 
Wilderness   period,    i.    127.      See 

Amos,  Exodus. 
World,     popular    and    prophetic 

conception  of,  ii.  30,  50,  57  f. 
A^orship  and  daily  life,  ii.  ]  12— 

place  of,  ii.  155  ff. 
Writer  and  his  age,  i.  57,  169. 
Writing  on  stone,  i.  70— in  Israel, 

i.  83— in  Egypt  and  East,  i.  85, 

ii.  261— in  Moses'  time,  i.  85,  89. 

Zechariah,  ii.  217. 


THE  MODEny  PRINTINO  OOMPAXY,   NEW  YOEK. 


DATE  DUE 

**^*^^                 1  i<* 

Mi^!"'^'''^ 

I 

CAYLORD 

PRINT  ED  :N  U    S    A. 

BS1196.R653  1903V.2 

The  early  religion  of  Israel :  as  set 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00043  7873 


